Weaver v. Griffith

59 A. 315, 210 Pa. 13, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 826
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 4, 1904
DocketAppeal, No. 100
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 59 A. 315 (Weaver v. Griffith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Weaver v. Griffith, 59 A. 315, 210 Pa. 13, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 826 (Pa. 1904).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The defendant might have terminated the contract under the clause that “ In case the said party of the second part doth not make payment as above specified at the time herein stated then this agreement is to be null and void, and all parties are to be released from all liabilities herein and all money previously paid forfeited.” But the failure to make the payments at the stipulated times did not, of its own force, terminate the contract. It was not one of option, but of sale and purchase, and prima facie the time of payment was not of its essence. While a contract may provide that it shall be terminable at the will of either party, so that a purchaser may even terminate it by his own default, yet such effect will not be given to it unless the intent of both parties to that effect be made apparent by clear, precise and unequivocal language. The presumption is that the forfeiture clause is for the benefit of the vendor and enforceable at his election. Without such election and action the purchaser would not be released from his obligation to pay, and equally the vendor would continue to be bound by his agreement to sell.

In the present case the court below found as a fact that the defendant had not elected to enforce his right of forfeiture, but by his conduct had substantially waived it. Thus retaining his right to enforce the contract against the purchaser to buy he equally kept alive his own obligation to sell.

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Miller v. Romberger (In Re Romberger)
150 B.R. 125 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1992)
Tanenbaum v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
401 A.2d 809 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Clair v. Noce
72 Pa. D. & C. 216 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1950)
Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Eavenson
145 A. 434 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1928)
Martin v. Gettle
10 Pa. D. & C. 473 (York County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Gilbert v. Steinmetz
10 Pa. D. & C. 327 (Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Shermet v. Embick
90 Pa. Super. 269 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1926)
Sheaffer v. Eichenberg
62 Pa. Super. 510 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Hay v. Baer
48 Pa. Super. 231 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1911)
Cape May Real Estate Co. v. Henderson
42 Pa. Super. 1 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A. 315, 210 Pa. 13, 1904 Pa. LEXIS 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-griffith-pa-1904.