Kakalik v. Bernardo
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1ConcurrenceShea, J.
I take issue with the portion of the opinion stating that the “contract contains no clause expressly making time of the essence . . . .” The agreement provided that unless the mortgage loan commitment was obtained “not later than April 23, 1975” the agreement for the sale of the property “shall become null and void and deposit money returned to Buyer.” Although time of performance is generally deemed not to be of the essence in real estate sale contracts, it is unquestionable that the parties may so stipulate and that a clear expression of such an intention must be given effect. 6 Williston,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hoffman v. Employer's Liability Assurance Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1934
- Wimer v. WagnerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1929
- Patterson v. Farmington Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Doctorman v. SchroederSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1921
- Camp v. CohnSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1964
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.