What must a contract state if parties desire strict enforcement of time provisions?

When parties to a contract desire strict enforcement of time provisions, it is essential for the contract to explicitly state that "time is of the essence." This phrase indicates that timely performance is a critical component of the agreement, and any delay may result in a breach of contract. By including this term, the parties acknowledge that deadlines are not merely suggestions but are integral to the execution of the contract. This legal affirmation gives both parties a clear understanding that compliance with the timeline is imperative, allowing for greater predictability and certainty in contractual obligations.

The other options do not convey this same level of emphasis on timeliness. For example, stating that "a reasonable time will be allowed" implies flexibility and does not assert the necessity of strict adherence to deadlines. Similarly, "time shall not lapse" may suggest that deadlines must be adhered to, but lacks the legal impact of the phrase in question. Lastly, the principle of caveat emptor, which means "let the buyer beware," pertains to the buyer's responsibility to inspect and understand what they are purchasing, and does not reference time provisions in contractual obligations. Therefore, "time is of the essence" is the correct choice for ensuring strict enforcement of time stipulations in a contract.