A wheat farmer hires an agricultural services company to provide five workers for five days. The company’s workers go on strike on day five; the strike ends and they work the full five days. The farmer refuses to pay, claiming the delay excuses performance. Is the farmer’s obligation to pay excused?

• A. Yes, because the delay affected performance.
• B. No, because the contract did not contain a time is of the essence clause.
• C. Yes, because the delay was substantial.
• D. No, because delays due to a strike do not automatically excuse performance.

Answer: (B)

The main concept is that time is of the essence makes timely performance a material term of the contract; without such a clause, delays do not automatically excuse performance. Here, the contract called for five workers for five days and there is no time is of the essence clause. The workers did complete the full five-day service, even if a strike occurred on the fifth day, so there was no delay beyond the agreed period. Because there’s no clause making punctual completion essential, a delay does not automatically excuse performance, and payment is due. If time had been of the essence or the delay extended beyond the five days, the outcome could differ.