Final answer:
In a legal dispute regarding the enforcement of an insurance contract's clause, Liberty Farm Co. would likely win in court because Dodger failed to report the loss within the contractually agreed-upon 45-day period, and the clause stating 'time is of the essence' emphasizes the importance of the deadline.
Step-by-step explanation:
The subject matter of the question revolves around a legal dispute concerning the enforcement of an insurance contract clause. In the scenario presented, Dodger bought an insurance policy from Liberty Farm Co. which specified a 45-day period for reporting losses. As time is of the essence, this provision is legally binding and critically important to the contract. Dodger's failure to report the farm loss within the specified timeframe of 45 days, instead reporting at 50 days, places him in breach of the contract terms.
If this matter goes to lawsuit and the facts are as stated, it is likely that Liberty Farm Co. would prevail on the grounds that the contract's reporting clause was clear, and Dodger did not comply within the required period. The scenario is similar to the case of Lilly Ledbetter where the statute of limitations was an issue, but the important difference is that Dodger was presumably aware of the loss immediately, making the 45-day clause enforceable. Therefore, Liberty Farm's decision to deny coverage would typically be upheld in court due to the unmet condition precedent for filing claims.