Contracts—Whether Time of the Essence Letter Provided A Reasonable Amount of Time for Performance Was An Issue of Fact—Changing Venue of Closing to Purchaser’s Attorney’s Office From Sellers’ Attorney’s Office Was Immaterial Change—Letter Was Sent to Purchaser’s Attorney and Not To Each Seller as Required by the Contract—Where Actual Notice Not Denied or Prejudice Caused, Notice Is Valid
THE SUBJECT DECISION involved a contract for the purchase of real estate. The contract did not contain a time of the essence (TOE) provision. This decision involved the issue of whether a party had given a post-contract TOE notice in a proper manner.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
