Vanbuskirk v. Nakamura

2 Citing cases

  1. Vanbuskirk v. Nakamura

    No. 74702-COA (Nev. App. Mar. 25, 2019)

    However, on appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter because genuine issues of material fact remained "regarding the scope of the time-is-of-the-essence provision and the reasonableness of the [four-day] delay in lowering the purchase price." Vanbuskirk v. Nakamura, Docket No. 67816 (Order of Reversal and Remand, May 20, 2016). The supreme court cited Mayfield v. Koroghli, which held that "[i]f time is not of the essence, the parties generally must perform under the contract within a reasonable time, which depends upon the nature of the contract and the particular circumstances involved."

  2. Zamora v. Klein

    No. 86293-COA (Nev. App. Mar. 22, 2024)

    If "[a] contract that includes a clause providing in general terms that time is of the essence," such as the RPA here, the clause "does not necessarily apply to pre-closing conditions that do not affect the specified closing date." Vanbuskirk v. Nakamura, No. 67816, 2016 WL 2985026, at *2 (Nev. May 20, 2016) (Order of Reversal and Remand). In such cases, courts must determine whether the time-is-of-the-essence clause applies to a particular condition precedent.