Legal Definitions - uncore prist

Uncore prist is a historical legal plea used when a party wanted to assert that they were, and continued to be, ready to fulfill an obligation, such as paying a debt or performing a contractual duty, even after their initial offer to do so was rejected. It essentially means "still ready." This plea would be made in court to demonstrate that the party was not in default and was prepared to meet their commitment, despite the other party's refusal or failure to accept the performance.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Scenario: Debt Payment

  Imagine a small business owner, Sarah, owes a supplier, Mark, $5,000 for materials. On the due date, Sarah attempts to pay Mark by offering a check, but Mark, perhaps due to a dispute or misunderstanding, refuses to accept the payment. Despite Sarah's readiness and attempt to pay, Mark later sues her for the $5,000, claiming she defaulted. In court, Sarah could use the plea of uncore prist, stating that she had offered the payment, Mark refused it, and she is still ready and willing to pay the $5,000. This demonstrates that she was not defaulting on her obligation but was prevented from fulfilling it by Mark's refusal.

• Scenario: Contract for Services

  Consider a contractor, David, who was hired by a homeowner, Emily, to build a custom patio. David completes the patio according to the contract specifications and informs Emily that it's ready for final inspection and payment. Emily, however, delays the inspection and refuses to make the final payment, claiming the work isn't finished, even though it is. If Emily were to sue David for breach of contract, David could raise the plea of uncore prist, asserting that he completed his work as agreed and was still ready for Emily to inspect it and make the final payment. This shows David fulfilled his part of the agreement and was prepared for Emily to fulfill hers.

• Scenario: Lease Agreement Renewal

  Suppose a tenant, Alex, properly notified his landlord, Brenda, of his intention to renew his lease for another year, as allowed by their existing agreement. Alex offered to sign a new lease and pay the first month's rent for the renewed term. Brenda, however, decided she wanted to sell the property and refused Alex's offer to renew, preventing him from signing the new agreement. If Brenda later tried to evict Alex by claiming he hadn't properly renewed or paid, Alex could argue uncore prist. This would demonstrate that he was still ready and willing to fulfill his part of the lease renewal agreement, but Brenda had prevented him from doing so.