Maple Ridge Construction (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Kasten Construction (defendant) to purchase a lot in a subdivision being developed by Kasten. The purchase agreement set a specified date by which Maple Ridge was to tender the purchase price. Maple Ridge had difficulty securing financing and failed to make payment by the contractual deadline. The purchase agreement did not specify that time was of the essence and Kasten agreed to extend the payment deadline. Maple Ridge failed to make payment by the second deadline. Five days after the second deadline had passed, Maple Ridge notified Kasten that it had ordered a title examination and expected it to be completed within a few weeks. Kasten informed Maple Ridge that it considered the purchase agreement null and void since the second deadline for payment had expired. Maple Ridge filed suit seeking an order for specific performance. The trial court ruled in favor of Maple Ridge and ordered specific performance upon the payment of interest by Maple Ridge. Kasten appealed.