View this case and other resources at:
Citation. 22 Ill.92 N.J. Eq. 676, 7 B. Stockton 676, 114 A. 810 (1921)
Brief Fact Summary. In this case Doctorman (Plaintiff) entered into a contract to purchase property from Schroeder (Defendant). The contract specifically stipulated that unless the payment was made on that day all monies paid on the account would be forfeited and the agreement would be null and void, however Plaintiff convinced Defendant to accept a partial payment. Facts.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Repeated acceptance of late payments by a vendor can lead to a finding that the vendor has waived enforcement of the time constraints within the contract.
In this case Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase property from Defendant, and paid $500.00 as the down payment. She was to pay an additional payment of $1,500.00 on December 19, 1919. The contract specifically stipulated that unless the payment was made on that day all monies paid on the account would be forfeited and the agreement would be null and void. The Plaintiff, on December 19, convinced Defendant to accept $500.00 as partial payment. The Defendant wrote a receipt which provided that the remaining $1,000.00 due was to be paid on December 20, by 2:30 p.m. in a specific office, time was of the essence, and any failure to make the payment on time would result in the termination of the agreement. Plaintiff was about forty minutes late and Defendant refused to accept her payment. Issue.
Should the court supply a different outcome than what the parties clearly intended?