Atlanta Jet v. Liberty Aircraft Services, LLC
2004 WL 331170, 866 So. 2d 148 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a contract that does not contain a 'time is of the essence' clause, a party's delay in performance does not constitute a material breach justifying termination unless specific conditions making time essential are met, such as express notice or resulting hardship.
Facts:
- Atlanta Jet (Seller) and Liberty Aircraft Services (Purchaser) entered into a contract for the sale of a King Air 200 aircraft for $1,695,000.
- The contract required a $50,000 deposit, which would become non-refundable and be released to the Seller upon the Purchaser's acceptance after a visual inspection and log book review.
- The contract set a closing date of on or before April 15, 1999, and included a liquidated damages clause allowing the Seller to retain the deposit if the Purchaser failed to accept delivery.
- On April 5, 1999, the parties executed an addendum in which the Purchaser accepted the aircraft 'as is' and agreed the deposit was non-refundable and would be released to the Seller.
- The Seller failed to have the aircraft ready for closing by the April 15, 1999 date.
- On April 19, the Seller proposed an addendum to extend the closing date to April 27, 1999, which the Purchaser never agreed to.
- The aircraft was still not ready by the Seller's newly proposed date of April 27.
- When the aircraft was eventually ready, the Purchaser was notified but failed to perform an acceptance flight, leading the Seller to declare the Purchaser in default on May 20, 1999.
Procedural Posture:
- Liberty Aircraft (Purchaser) filed suit in a Florida trial court against Atlanta Jet (Seller) seeking the return of its $50,000 deposit.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Purchaser, Liberty Aircraft, finding the Seller's delay was a material breach.
- Final judgment was entered for the Purchaser, and the Seller's motion for rehearing was denied.
- Atlanta Jet (Seller), as the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, with Liberty Aircraft as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a seller's delay in performance constitute a material breach of a contract for the sale of an aircraft, thereby entitling the purchaser to terminate the contract and recover a non-refundable deposit, when the contract does not contain a 'time is of the essence' clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Polen, J.
No, the seller's delay in performance does not constitute a material breach. For a delay to be a material breach, time must be of the essence in the contract. Time is considered of the essence only if: the contract explicitly states so, the nature of the subject matter implies it, treating time as non-essential would produce a hardship, or the non-defaulting party gives notice to the defaulting party to perform within a stated, reasonable time. In this case, the contract did not contain a 'time is of the essence' clause, no hardship was demonstrated, and the Purchaser never gave the Seller notice with a final, reasonable deadline. Therefore, the Seller's delay was not a material breach, and the Purchaser was not justified in terminating the contract. The Purchaser's subsequent failure to perform constituted the actual breach, entitling the Seller to retain the $50,000 deposit as valid liquidated damages.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law rule that dates in a contract are not treated as strict deadlines unless explicitly stated. It clarifies the narrow circumstances under which a court will find that 'time is of the essence,' thereby elevating a delay to the level of a material breach. The ruling underscores the importance for drafters to include a 'time is of the essence' clause if a deadline is critical. For future litigants, it establishes that a party cannot unilaterally terminate a contract due to a reasonable delay without first providing the delaying party with notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the delay.
