Time is of the essence

From The Jolly Contrarian
Revision as of 17:53, 11 November 2019 by Amwelladmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™


Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Negotiation Anatomy™


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

A magic incantation that one puts into a contract to designate that, whatever else might go down, a party’s failure to comply with obligations within the stated time-frame is a fundamental breach justifying termination of contract, a plague upon your houses, apocalyptic horsemen on the ridge and so on.

Now at common law, time is — wasalways of the essence. When any time is specified for the completion of an action, one party has an action if the other doesn’t performed by that time[1].

But as always, the dear old courts of chancery have to have their say. In equity, time is only fundamental to a contract if:

  • Time is expressed to be “of the essence”;
  • Otherwise the circumstances indicate the time limit must be complied with exactly;
  • Where neither of the above applies, but one party has been unduly delaysome, the other can give notice requiring the contract to be performed within a reasonable time, therefore making time of the essence.

Thanks to the Law of Property Act 1925, Section 41, the rules at equity now apply in contract as well. Eheu.

Grace periods and “the essence”

We have heard it argued that time being of the essence might override otherwise carefully negotiated grace periods. When challenged, the counsel in question was tongue-tied for a moment, before mumbling something about litigation over the Lehman administration[2] but could not, ultimately supply any grounds, let alone actual authority, for this proposition.[3] Time being of the essence means, more than anywhere, that one should assume the parties meant what precisely what they said. Here, one should pay exact attention to the time limits prescribed by a contract — including the grace periods so tediously injected into it — not ignore them.

See also

References

  1. Parkin v Thorold (1852) 16Beav. 59.
  2. As we all know, the Lehman administration was, in the Harry Potter universe, a Horcrux and, in our own, charted a new portion of legal space-time where normal rules of Euclidean geometry do not apply.
  3. Please write in if you can think of one.