Chirichella v. Erwin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the determination of what constitutes a condition precedent if a question of “construction dependent on the intent of the parties to be gathered from the words they have employed”
• explaining that a condition precedent is “a fact,' other than mere lapse of time, which, unless excused, must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance of a promise arises”
• explaining that a condition precedent is “a fact, other than mere lapse of time, which, unless excused, must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance of a promise arises”
• stating that phrases such as “if,” “provided that,” “when,” “after,” “as soon as,” or “subject to” are sufficient to create express conditions
• defining condition precedent as “a fact, other than mere lapse of time, which unless excused, must exist or occur before a duty of immediate performance of a promise arises”
• finding no condition precedent created when the clause in the contract simply stated that the real estate closing would “[c]oincide with settlement of New Home in Kettering Approx. Oct. ‘71,’ ” and “merely fixe[d] a convenient and appropriate time for settlement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).