Stacy v. Williams

I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority because the language employed in the purchase agreement did not create a condition precedent. The majority affirmed the chancellor’s holding that a condition precedent existed in the contract which conditioned the appellees’ obligation to purchase appellants’ farm on their ability to obtain financing. This interpretation is clearly contrary to the terms of the agreement.

We have held that, when contracting parties express their intention in a written instrument in clear and unambiguous language, it is our duty to construe the written…