P lent a computer to D on a hire-purchase basis, stating that timely payment was to be a condition. D narrowly failed to make the payments and P repossessed the computer and resold it. The CA upheld P’s termination because the breach was of a condition.
This shows the danger of letting the parties decide what should be a condition and what a warranty, since the more powerful party can simply make every small term a condition. Bad decision since Schuler shows that this is not necessary. On the hand time might have been v important to P genuinely…
