"Time is of the essence" clauses often appear to be perfunctory additions to construction contracts — something that is so apparent that it should almost be assumed.  Not so, says the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Sanders v. Breath of Life Christian Church, Inc, 2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 27.  I'll post the link to the Tennessee case later, but one aspect of the case that is interesting is that the owner (church's) construction delay claim against its contractor was denied by the court because the court did not believe a delayed completion constituted a material breach of contract for two reasons:  first, the contract did not contain a "time is of the essence" clause, and without such a clause, there must be some other evidence that time was a material part of the contract.  Although the contract in question contained a beginning and end date, which implied of course that the contract completion was due within a set period, it also stated that in the event the contract extended beyond the stated completion time, the contractor would be entitled to additional monies.  This, the court said, proved that "[t]he express terms of the contract specifically contemplated that this construction project could take over twelve months to complete."  Thus, completion of the work outside the term of the contract, was not a material breach of the contract.  In short, do not neglect this type of language in construction contracts — it is there for a purpose.