Reading this case, I'm surprised at the outcome. The seller fulfilled on the terms of the contract.
The contract also didn't specify the precise color or weight of the cotton, the exact destination, etc etc etc so the defendant could make similar claims to renege on the contract.
Granted, time is arguably special inasmuch as it allows the seller to construct a scenario for fulfillment, e.g. the seller could've delivered 100 years later on a new boat that happened to be named Peerless. That's clearly not the intent.
In that sense, a contract can be considered void if it doesn't reasonably specify time.
Reading this case, I'm surprised at the outcome. The seller fulfilled on the terms of the contract.
The contract also didn't specify the precise color or weight of the cotton, the exact destination, etc etc etc so the defendant could make similar claims to renege on the contract.
Granted, time is arguably special inasmuch as it allows the seller to construct a scenario for fulfillment, e.g. the seller could've delivered 100 years later on a new boat that happened to be named Peerless. That's clearly not the intent.
In that sense, a contract can be considered void if it doesn't reasonably specify time.