For Problem 5, why should late performance be considered a breach?

For Problem 6, should conditions be strictly enforced? Why or Why not?

5. The Bassos contracted with Dierberg to purchase her property for $1,310,000. One term of the contract stated, "[t]he sale under this contract shall be closed ... at the office of Community Title Company ... on May 16, 1988 at 10:00 AM. ... Time is of the essence of this contract." After forming the contract, the Bassos assigned their right to purchase Dierberg's property to Miceli and Slonim Development Corp. At 10:00 AM on May 16, 1988, Dierberg appeared at Community Title for closing. No representative of Miceli and Slonim was there, nor did anyone from Miceli and Slonim inform Dierberg that there would be any delay in the closing. At 10:20 AM, Dierberg declared the contract null and void because the closing did not take place as agreed, and she left the title company office shortly thereafter. Dierberg had intended to use the purchase money to close another contract to purchase real estate later in the day. At about 10-30 AM, a representative of Miceli and Slonim appeared at Community Title to begin the closing, but the representative did not have the funds for payment until 1:30 PM. Dierberg refused to return to the title company, stating that Miceli and Slonim had breached the contract by failing to tender payment on time. She had already made altemative arrangements to finance her purchase of other real estate to meet her obligation under that contract. Miceli and Slonim sued Dierberg, claiming that the contract did not require closing exactly at 10:00 AM, but rather some time on the day of May 16. Will they prevail? The Ewells bought a home in Seaford, Delaware. They planned to renovate it and reside in it later. The Ewells insured the house with an insurance company, Lloyd's of London. Shortly after purchasing the house, the Ewells notified the insurance company that it intended to renovate the house. The insurance company thereupon issued a Special Use Form Policy that contained a single-page "Course of Construction/ Renovation Endorsement." The Fire Provision of the Endorsement stated: In the event of any construction or renovation work at the premises described in the Declarations the following conditions shall apply: You must ensure that visible and accessible fire extinguishers be placed on each level of the dwelling. Failure to comply with this provision will render this insurance null and void. The Ewells did not place any fire extinguishers in the house. The work on the house proceeded with the removal of plaster and gutting of the kitchen and another room. In the early morning hours of January 20 , 2009 , the house and its contents were destroyed by fire. At the time of the fire, the Ewells were sleeping in a shed that they had built in the back yard rather than in the house. They were awakened by the amival of fire trucks. The Ewells informed the insurance company of the fire, and it assigned an adjuster to investigate the loss. The insurance company ultimately denied the claim because the Ewelis had not comextinguishers on each floor of the house, as required by the Endorsement. The Ewells sued the insurance company for breach of contract. They argued that the fire extinguisher provision was meaningless because no one was in the house at the time of the fire, so no one could have used a fire extinguisher if there had been one present. They also argue that the condition was not triggered because the work that they were in the process of doing was demolition and they had not yet begun renovation. Will they win