(C) is correct.
Issue: The issue is whether the express condition in the contract, granting the sailor an option to
cancel the ship, had been validly triggered by the event of the ship not being ready to load until
the morning of October 11.
Rule: Literal compliance with an express condition is usually necessary before a duty of
performance will become absolute. The use of words such as “on condition that,” “as soon as,”
“if,” “provided,” etc, may indicate that the contract is not to have legal existence or is not to be
performed until some specified fact or event shall occur.
Analysis: Here, the sailor had the explicit option to cancel if the ship did not arrive before
midnight of the 10th of October, and this option was granted for consideration. The option to
cancel was conditioned upon the failure of the ship to arrive by the 10th of October. If the ship
did not meet this deadline, the option to cancel would be triggered. Thus, once the ship owner
did not perform the express condition of the contract – to arrive and be ready to load by the 10th
of October -the sailor was allowed to exercise their option to cancel. Whether or not the sailor
was actually prejudiced is irrelevant.
(C) is correct because the sailor exercised his right to cancel the ship, pursuant to the express
condition specifically allowing for such a right, and thus no breach of contract occurred.
(A) is incorrect because the failure to meet the express condition of the contract was not due to
any lack of good faith, implied or otherwise.
(B) is incorrect because the express language of the contract includes an explicit condition that
if not met would trigger the right of the sailor to cancel. The alleged minimal nature of the delay
and the lack of prejudice are irrelevant.
(D) is incorrect because the sailor’s ability to secure a different charter is irrelevant to the
question of whether they breached the original contract.