Court Opinion

ID: 9713284
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:12:45.513362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.967724
License: Public Domain

dissenting:
I dissent. The present state of the law holds that time is of the essence in an action at law on a contract for the sale of land. I would retain that standard unless the intent of the parties is clearly to the contrary. In this case, I would hold that the language of the October 10, 1974 agreement made time of the essence. This was corroborated by the fact that the parties had failed to meet two prior closing dates and had put appellants on notice that forfeiture was inevitable if the third closing date was not met. Based on these circumstances, I would affirm the lower court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of appellees.