Ritter v. . Chandler

Per Curiam. Plaintiff seeks the specific performance of an unilateral contract or option to sell. No time being specified within which the right to buy may be exercised, that it must be exercised within a reasonable time is not subject to controversy. The evidence fails to show any effort on the part of plaintiff to exercise the right to take advantage of defendant’s offer to sell until the institution of this action, and then there is no evidence of tender of the purchase price. But, if it be conceded that the delivery of notes on 6 October, 1926, constitutes an acceptance of offer to sell, and a waiver of tender, the delay of more than ten years to seek to enforce specific performance is such laches as will defeat the right thereto. “When in a contract ... no time is specified within which a performance is to be made, the party to the contract who wishes to enforce a specific performance must come forward within a reasonable time to demand it ” Nash, C. J., in Francis *705 v. Love, 56 N. C., 321. In tbat case a delay of six years was held to bar specific performance. Long delay, accompanied by acts inconsistent witb a purpose of performing a contract, will, if not waived by tbe seller, preclude tbe buyer from specific performance of tbe contract. Holden v. Purefoy, 108 N. C., 163, 12 S. E., 848; Beattie v. R. R., 108 N. C., 425, 12 S. E., 913; May v. Getty, 140 N. C., 310, 53 S. E., 75. Here, as was said in Francis v. Love, supra, we are of opinion tbat “tbe plaintiff bas laid by too long, and tbat be bas not preferred bis claim witbin reasonable time.” Tbe judgment below is. Affirmed.