The Leasing Hotline

A commercial contract containing a grace period that put the parties on notice that a delay in payment would accelerate the balance due was the equivalent of an agreement that time was of the essence. Sublime, Inc. v. Boardman's Inc., Case No. 4D02-1403, Fla.Ct.App., July 16, 2003.

A landlord and tenant executed a termination agreement providing that if the tenant defaulted on any of the payments of the termination fee, the balance of the remainder of the rent would be due and payable immediately. The tenant failed to make a payment and the landlord sent a letter demanding payment of the remainder of the lease, as specified in the termination agreement. The tenant tendered the defaulted payment 13 days past the grace period; the landlord rejected it and sued for breach of contract. The trial court rendered judgment only for the past-due payments under the termination agreement because the agreement did not state that time was of the essence. The landlord appealed and the appellate court reversed. It found that although the contract did not expressly state that time was of the essence, it did specifically state that the remainder of the lease payments would be “immediately” due and payable upon default. Thus, because the contract contained an express provision for payment of a sum certain on a specific date, the parties essentially agreed that time was of the essence.