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.
