A contract for a service is not marked with a time-is-of-the-essence clause. A party delays due to a strike but ultimately performs. The non-breaching party argues performance was delayed and the contract is excused. Which statement is correct?

• A. The delay is excused because of the strike.
• B. The delay is not excused because the contract did not contain a time-is-of-the-essence clause.
• C. The delay is excused only if the contract included a force majeure clause.
• D. The delay is excused only if the delay was substantial.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that timing becomes essential only if the contract says so. When there is no time-is-of-the-essence clause, deadlines are not treated as strict, automatic triggers for excusing performance. A delay by itself does not automatically discharge the obligation or excuse performance; the contract still requires performance, and the party can be in breach if the delay is material, but mere lateness isn’t automatically fatal.

In this scenario, there’s no time-is-of-the-essence clause, so the late performance due to the strike does not by itself excuse the obligation. Force majeure or other defenses would require relevant clauses or conditions not stated here, and the fact that the party eventually performs does not automatically erase the impact of the delay on the non-breaching party. Therefore, the correct view is that the delay is not excused simply because there is no time-is-of-the-essence clause.