Cited by

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75 (1971) (“The general rule is that unless specifically so stated, time is not to be considered as of the essence” and “[t]he mere fact that a date is stated in the instrument is not sufficient alone to alter this rule.”).

While the language of a purported contract' document is the initial indicator of the parties’ intent, see Dunn v. CLD Paving, 140 N.H. 120, 122, 663 A.2d 104, 106 (1995), the surrounding circumstances may also be'relevant, see Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971), especially where the document’s terms are ambiguous, see Richey v. Leighton, 137 N.H. 661, 663-64, 632 A.2d 1215, 1216 (1993).

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971); see Johnson v. Korsak, Inc., 120 N.H. 412, 415-16, 415 A.2d 1141, 1143 (1980) (time held to be of essence in purchase and sale agreement even though not expressly made so by contract language).

generally Mailloux v. Dickey, 129 N.H. 62, 66, 523 A.2d 66, 69 (1986) (time normally not of essence unless agreement specifically so states); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971) (whether time essential to be determined by reference to instrument and all surrounding circumstances).

As a general rule, time is not considered to be of the essence unless the contract specifically states it is.

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971); see also Johnson v. Korsak, Inc., 120 N.H. 412, 415, 415 A.2d 1141, 1143 (1980).

Belknap Textiles, Inc. v. Belknap Industries, Inc., 121 N.H 28, 30, 424 A.2d 1141, 1142 (1981); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 76, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971).

New Bradford Co. v. Meunier, 117 N.H. 774, 776, 378 A.2d 748, 750 (1977); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 76, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971).

Corp., 114 N.H. 520, 323 A.2d 581 (1974); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971); 4 J. Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence § 1408 (5th ed. 1941); 3 American Law of Property § 11.45 (A. J. Carner ed. 1952).

Clover &c. Co. v. Smith Co., 96 N.H. 491, 79 A.2d 8 (1951); Lester v. Lester, 109 N.H. 359, 252 A.2d 429 (1969); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971).

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971); J. Calamari and J. Perillo, Contracts § 157, at 247 (1970); 6 S. Williston, Contracts § 846, at 184 (1962); 3A A. Corbin, Contracts § 716 (1960).

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971); Grayson v. LaBranche, 107 N.H. 504, 505-06, 225 A.2d 922, 923 (1967); Bogosian v. Fine, 99 N.H. 340, 342, 111 A.2d 190, 192 (1955).

Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971); see Sawin v. Carr, 114 N.H. 462, 323 A.2d 924 (1974).

“The credibility of the witnesses and the question as to what agreement regarding commissions was made were questions of fact *504 for the Trial Court (Amodeo v. Allen, 94 N.H. 370) and since the findings could reasonably be made on all the evidence they must stand.” Gingras v. Stark Estates, 109 N.H. 242, 244, 248 A.2d 86, 88 (1968); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971); Kenroy, Inc. v. Berthold, 11 Ill.

Plimpton v. Theos, 113 N.H. 651, 652, 312 A.2d 686, 687 (1973); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971); Kalman v. Hutcheson, 111 N.H. 36, 40, 276 A.2d 260, 263 (1971).

etation of deeds and contracts (Peerless v. Clough, 105 N.H. 76, 193 A.2d 444 (1963)), “[i]n the interpretation of a contract the findings of the trial court based upon evidence of the surrounding circumstances are findings of fact which are binding in this court if supported by the evidence.” Copeland Process Corp. v. Nalews, Inc., 113 N.H. 612, 615-16, 312 A.2d 576, 579 (1973); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 75, 276 A.2d 1, 3 (1971).

Anderson-Nichols Company, Inc. v. Page, 113 N.H. 445, 309 A.2d 148 (1973); Kalman v. Hutcheson, 111 N.H. 36, 276 A.2d 260 (1971); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971).

Kalman v. Hutcheson, 111 N.H. 36, 276 A.2d 260 (1971); Guy v. Hanley, 111 N.H. 73, 276 A.2d 1 (1971).