A wheat farmer contracts with an agricultural services company to provide five workers for five days in June for $5,000 total. The workers strike for part of the period, delaying performance by several days. The farmer later refuses to pay, arguing the delay excused performance. Does the farmer’s obligation to pay get excused?

• A. No, because the delay did not deprive the farmer of the substantial benefit of the bargain.
• B. Yes, because starting in the first week of June was an express condition.
• C. Yes, because the farmer promised to deliver but failed.
• D. No, because the farmer delivered after the expected window.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that a delay in performance does not automatically excuse payment unless the delay defeats the purpose of the contract or makes time of the essence. In this case, the agricultural services company did provide the five workers for five days, just later than planned due to a strike. The farmer still received the promised service—the substantial benefit of the bargain—so the obligation to pay the $5,000 remains. The late performance may give rise to damages for the delay, but it does not excuse payment entirely. If the contract had made time of the essence or the delay had destroyed the value of the promised service, the outcome could differ.