of contract for the purchase and sale of property, this court said: ‘...whichever of the parties first desired to enforce performance was bound to regard his part of the contract as a condition precedent, and perform or offer performance in order to enable him to proceed to enforce the contract.’ This doctrine was reiterated by this court in Heights Land Co. v. Swengel’s Estate et al., 319 Pa. 298, 179 A. 431, 432, where it said: ‘It is equally well established that a tender of performance on the part of plaintiff is prerequisite to a decree for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate; he who seeks equity must do equity.’ Cohn, 51 A.2d at 743-44 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Cf. Moser v. Jacob Brown Building & Loan Ass’n, 182 A. 531, 533-34 (Pa. 1936) (<HOLDING>). A second reason why tender of payment of the
holding that there was no presumption of a gift where the wifes money was used to make the purchase but title was placed in the name of the husband and finding the facts sufficient to establish a purchase money resulting trust in favor of the wife holding the insurer liable for failing to settle the claim when time was of the essence holding optionees acceptance of option without tender of purchase price created mutually binding contract entitling optionee to specific performance holding that in an agreement of sale in which time was of the essence and tender of deeds and of purchase money were expressly waived waiver of time is of the essence of the agreement would not result from a failure to tender because the parties had agreed that neither tender of deed nor tender of purchase money was required to put the other in default holding that the state is not required to tender a nameclearing hearing prior to disclosing the charges or discharging the employee