Taylor v Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 November 1839 |
| Date | 12 November 1839 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 48 E.R. 1149
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 14. See Webb v. Hughes, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 287; Green v. Sevin, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 599.
[180] taylor v. brown. Nov. 12, 1839. [S. C. 9 L. J. Ch. (N. S.), 14. See Webb y. Hughes, 1870, L. R. 10 Eq. 287; Green v. Serin, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 599.] Where time is not of the essence of the contract, and there is unnecessary delay by-one of the parties in completing, the other has a right, by notice, to limit the time for completing the contract, and upon default to abandon the contract. A bill was filed by a vendor for the specific performance of a contract: the purchaser insisted that the contract had been abandoned : failing in this defence he was. ordered to pay the costs of suit up to the hearing, and the usual reference was, made as to title. In 1834 the Defendant became the purchaser of certain freehold property-belonging to the Plaintiffs. The sale was by auction, subject to certain conditions,, with respect to which it is sufficient to observe that time was not made of the essence of the contract, and that [181] some delay was thereby anticipated in consequence of the residence of some of the vendors in Canada. It was stipulated, however, that if it should be necessary to send the conveyance to Canada, the execution by the parties, should be obtained with all reasonable despatch. The abstract was furnished and submitted for the opinion of the Defendant'^, conveyancer; this being obtained, various communications took place between the parties, the Plaintiffs endeavouring to comply with the requisition; and in order to . remove the objections raised, considerable delay occurred in sending to Canada and in obtaining the requisite evidence. This, however, was not objected to on the pai't of the Defendant until the time after stated. The conveyance was executed, and in March 1836 the answers to the remaining requisitions of counsel and further evidence and documents were furnished by the Plaintiffs, and were submitted on the part of the Defendant to his conveyancer. After this, frequent applications were made on the part of the Plaintiffs to th& Defendant's solicitor, urging the completion of the contract, and some threats were held out of filing a bill for specific performance. Nothing satisfactory was done by the Defendant until the 2d of July, when the further opinion of his conveyancer was furnished. Upon this, the vendor's solicitor obtained the further opinion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Koh Shey Guan v Lee Kok Chan
-
Alval Ltd v Attorney General of Jamaica
...to require completion of the work and in such a case, if the contractor does not complete by that date, the employer may dismiss him. See Taylor v Brown (1839) 9 LJ CH 14; 2 Beav. 180; 48 E.R. 1149. 19 A fixed completion date does not necessarily make time of the essence unless the contrac......
- Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd
- Louinder v Leis