Opinion ID: 1184357
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Time as the essence of the agreement.

Text: After thirteen days of trial, during which the history of this controversy was recounted in great detail, the trial court concluded: [P]rior to and at the time the parties entered into the June 5, 1970, Agreement ... both ... were in financial difficulties to the extent [that] the plans they had for developing and purchasing and selling the resort here in question and the related facilities were beyond their financial abilities. This finding is buttressed by the previous negotiations of the parties in connection with the development and purchase and sale of the property. I therefore find that both parties entered into this Agreement knowing of the financial instability of each other, both of them hoping that regardless of the financial difficulties of the other that through their combined efforts financing for the sale and purchase of this resort together with the building of additional condominiums could be accomplished within a reasonable time. Under the lapsed January, 1970, agreement, there had been two extensions permitting the airline to attempt performance until May, 1970. In the subsequent June agreement, there is nothing which makes prompt performance essential to the contract. [4] To the contrary, the superior court identified a portion of the agreement as showing an intent to proceed with the sale even if the airline were unable to perform at closing. [5] On these facts, we cannot say the court was incorrect in finding that performance on the day of closing was not intended by the parties.