Property

Brief

Kasten Construction Co. v. Maple Ridge Construction Co.

Procedural History:

• Chancellor ruled for Maple Ridge, requiring specific performance of the contract.
• Appealed.
• Decree Affirmed.

Facts:

• Contract, which was dated for December 4, 1964, provided for the sale and purchase of a tract of land in Section 4 of the Maple Ridge Subdivision.
• Maple Ridge is the buyer and Kasten is the seller in this instance.
• Maple Ridge was having difficulties financing and as a result the settlement date was extended in writing to on or before March 19, 1965.
  • Time was not stated to be of the essence.
• Maple Ridge then requested more time which was denied.
• During this time Kasten had bulldozed several of the streets and roads but had still made little progress toward providing Maple Ridge with the finished or completed lots it needed to begin constructing homes.
• Maple Ridge continued to try to obtain financing.
• Maple Ridge then notified Kasten that it had applied for a title examination; Kasten notified Maple that the contract of sale had expired and was void.

Issue:

• Was time of the essence in the above stated contract?

Holding:

• No. Affirmed for Maple Ridge.

Reasoning:

• Kasten claims that although the contract did not stipulate to time being of the essence, the fact that they denied extensions should prove that time was of the essence.
• The general rule however is that time is not of the essence of the contract of sale and purchase of land unless a contrary purpose is disclosed by its terms or is indicated by the circumstances and object of its execution and the conduct of the parties.
• The court does not think that the parties expressly stipulated to time being of the essence.
• The court also does not think the parties intention is inferable from the circumstances of the transaction, the conduct of the parties or the purpose for which the sale was made.