If "time is not of the essence" and a party is reasonably late, what is the likely outcome?

In situations where "time is not of the essence," the parties to a contract have more flexibility in terms of fulfilling their obligations within a reasonable timeframe. This means that if one party is late but the delay is reasonable, they can still enforce the contract while potentially owing damages to the other party for any inconvenience caused by the delay.

The key aspect of contracts stating that "time is not of the essence" is that deadlines are not strict; thus, a reasonable delay does not constitute a breach. The concept allows for some leeway, recognizing that circumstances can arise that may prevent timely performance. While damages may be owed due to the delay, the party who is late retains the right to enforce the terms of the contract, provided their delay was indeed reasonable.

In contrast, if time were of the essence and a party were late, they would be in automatic breach of the contract, potentially losing their rights under it. Therefore, the notion that being reasonably late leads to the outcome of owing damages while still being able to enforce the contract captures the principle that flexibility exists in non-strict time scenarios.