Download
1 / 1
10 likes | 127 Vues
Carol Wolkoff contracted Peter Miles to paint her house, with an agreement to start by June 1. Peter arrived on June 3, raising the question of whether the court would discharge the contract for this delay. Generally, unless the contract explicitly states that time is of the essence, courts tend to excuse minor delays. However, if a completion date, such as June 10 for a party on June 12, is specified, courts are likely to enforce the timeline. The case highlights the importance of clear contractual terms regarding deadlines.
E N D
Do Now Carol Wolkoff contract Peter Miles to paint her house. As part of the agreement, Peter promised to begin the job on or before June 1. He showed up on June 3rd. Would the courts discharge this contract due to it not being started in a reasonable time? Not likely. Unless it is stated at the beginning that time is of the essence, the court would probably excuse his lateness. If the agreement stated that the job was to be completed by June 10th because there was a party on June 12th, the courts would likely enforce the time period.
