Construction Supply And Stadium Builders Essay

1058 Words Oct 19th, 2015 null Page
Time is of the of the essence in the contract between Construction Supply and Stadium Builders, in which Construction Supply failed to meet the deadline for a seat installation. Time is generally not of the essence, unless it is established to be of the essence in the contract, or it can be inferred from the behavior of the parties, the object of the contract, or from the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
In Drazen v. American Oil Co., 395 A.2d 32 (1978) the dispute arose from a contract for the purchase of a property. There was an initial payment of $10,000 and the remaining amount on or before June 1, 1976. Drazin asked for an extension to October 1 in order to obtain a license to sell alcohol. It was granted. By October 1, the agreement has not been reached, but American Oil Co. granted another extension until October 15, but this time it stated that if the agreement was not reached by that date, the contract would be null and void. No agreement was made by October 15, American Oil Co. notified Drazen that since no agreement was reached by that time, the contract was void. The Trial Court denied specific performance and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground that, although time was not initially of the essence, it became of the essence when American Oil Co. gave a reasonable extension to reach the agreement and stated that if the agreement was not reached by that date, the contract would be null and void. In Kasten Contr. Co. v. Maple…

Related Documents