Property

Brief

Doctorman v. Schroeder

Procedural History:

• Bill dismissed.
• Appealed
• Affirmed for Schroeder.

Facts:

• This is a contract for the sale of land provided for the second payment, a payment of $1500, on December 19^th, 1919 with $500 being paid prior.
• On the stipulated day, Doctorman was unable to raise the $1500 which she was required to pay by the terms of the contract.
• The contract specifically stipulated that if the $1500 was not paid on that day then all money’s paid on account shall be forfeited and this agreement shall be null and void.
• Doctorman was unable to come up with the $1500 and thus paid $500 for an extension to pay the remaining $1000.
• The second agreement extending the time to December 20, 1919 at 2:30pm and stipulated that time was of the essence.
• Doctorman was 30 minutes late in her payment and thus the contract was rescinded.

Issue:

• Was time of the essence??

Holding:

• Yes. Affirmed.

Reasoning:

• The contract expressly states an exact time the money must be paid otherwise the contract is null and void.
• There is nothing unlawful in a purchaser agreeing that she shall lose her right to buy a property if she failed to pay on a given day.
• The court looks however to see if there is some waiver stipulated which would extend the time for the purchaser and found that there was no such waiver.
• The court therefore found that it was their right to avail themselves of such an opportunity and lawfully abided by the contract which was constructed.