## Facts

- A purchaser contracted to buy real property from the seller and paid $500 down.
- The contract required an additional $1,500 by December 19, 1919, expressly making time of the essence and providing that failure to pay would void the agreement and forfeit payments.
- On December 19, the purchaser could not pay the full $1,500 and the seller accepted an additional $500.
- The seller issued a written memorandum requiring the remaining $1,000 to be paid on December 20 on or before 2:30 p.m. at a designated office, again stating time was of the essence and nonpayment would terminate the agreement with forfeiture.
- On December 20, the purchaser tendered the remaining balance about 30–40 minutes after the 2:30 p.m. deadline.
- The seller, still present at the location, refused the late tender and declared the agreement terminated and prior payments forfeited.
- The purchaser sued in equity for specific performance; the trial court dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether equity should grant specific performance when a purchaser tenders payment after an express time-of-the-essence deadline that provides for termination and forfeiture upon late payment.
2. Whether the seller’s acceptance of a partial payment and execution of a written, conditional extension constituted a waiver of strict enforcement of the time condition.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the complaint and denied specific performance.
- The court enforced the time-of-the-essence provisions in the original contract and the written extension.
- The court held there was no waiver by the seller and no equitable basis to excuse the purchaser’s late tender.
- The forfeiture and termination provisions were enforced as written.

## Legal Principles

- When a land sale contract (or a valid written modification) expressly makes time of the essence and fixes a specific time for performance, equity generally enforces the provision according to its terms absent waiver or other recognized equitable grounds.
- Waiver of a time-of-the-essence provision may be found from a course of conduct such as repeated acceptance of late payments, but a single indulgence or conditional extension that reasserts strict timing does not, by itself, establish waiver.
- Where the parties’ intent regarding punctual performance, termination, and forfeiture is clear and lawful, a court of equity will not rewrite the bargain to relieve a purchaser from a self-caused default.

## Conclusion

Because the purchaser tendered payment after an expressly fixed time-of-the-essence deadline and the seller had not waived strict compliance, equity refused specific performance and enforced the agreed termination and forfeiture consequences.


Doctorman v. Schroeder, 114 A. 810 (N.J. Ct. Err. & App. 1921)