The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-07-19
ALOHA COFFEE Co.
Must Garry Out Specific
Agreement.
Interesting Decision by Judge Stan
ley Arising Out of an Option on
Sugar Lands

Judge Stanley has rendered a deci-
sion on demurrer in the case of Albert
4. Nichols VS.. Aloha Coffee Company.
a bill for specific performance The
petitioner asked that the defendant
company be decreed to specifically per
form certain written agreement en-
tered into between the parties on Feb
ruary 10, 1899. for the sale of 500 acres
of land In Olaa district at any time
within six months from the date there
of for the consideration of S37 800. of
which $500 was paid on the signing of
the agreement, $500 more was TO be
paid in ninety days thereafter and the
balance when the option was ac-
copied
1t appears from the record that the
plaintiff neglected to pay the second
installment of $500 within the time
mentioned but within a few days
thereafter made a tender of the same.
together with So interest. which the
defendant declined and refused to ac-
cept. On the day following the plain
tiff accepted the option, and made
tender of S37.OO5, being the balance of
the purchase price mentioned in the
agreement, together with So interest
on the second installment. The de-
PENDANT company refused to accept the
tender, and suit was brought To COM
pei specific performance.
gued that the payment of the second
sum OF $500 within ninety days from
the date of the agreement constituted
a condition precedent and that until
this condition had been fulfilled there
was no binding contract between the
parties. and that time being of the es-
sence of the contract the plaintiff hav-
ing neglected to pay the instalment
within the time specified could not by
a subsequent tender bind the defend
ant to fulfill the engagement.
On the other hand the plaintiff ar
gued that upon the payment of the sum
of $500 upon the day the agreement
was executed the defendant then and
there bound itself at that time to sell
to the plaintiff the land in question for
the sum of S37.5 800 at any time within
six months, if the plaintiff should de-
eide TO accept the option thus given.
and that the time of the payment of
the second instalment was not OF the
essence of the contract.
In summing up. Judge Stanley says
he is OF the opinion and so holds that
the defendant upon the payment TO il
of the sum of $500 upon February 16,
then and there bound itself at that
time TO sell TO the plaintiff, as agreed,
at any time within six months from
that date for the specified purchase
price. Nothing further than that one
payment was required to be performed
by the plaintiff before his rights to the
option accrued. In other words. no
condition precedent was required to be
complied with. BY the terms Of the
agreement the option was given on
February 18th. and the period of six
months. during which it might he ac-
cepted. began TO run from that date.
Regarding the second payment of
$500. Judge Stanley goes on to say:
1t is claimed by the defendant that
under the agreement the plaintin. by
paving $500 on February 10th. secured
the right and option to purchase the
land within ninety days thereafter
| and upon the second payment OF Sovu
an additional ninety days. but | con-
| sider that there was concluded con
tract in force from February 16tn. sub
| iect TO no condition precedent. the con
! tract being to sell for a certain price II
rendered within six months. l do not
Iconsider that the time Of payment OF
the second sum of $500 was OF the es'
sence OF the contract. but feel that a:
the defendant can be compensated b!
1.-The payment of interest for the delayed
payment of the principal sum eguit!
should enforce the performance of tn
contract. The demurrer is Overrule'
accordingly.