Brief Fact Summary. A contract was entered into by two companies in the business of aiding law school students' studies. The contract required one party to deliver a certain supplement within a certain amount of time to the other party. The party was late in delivering the supplement.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A contract will not be considered breached unless there is "substantial impairment of the whole contract."
Under the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation, when a party repudiates contractual duties prior to the time designated for performance and before all of the consideration has been fulfilled, the repudiation entitles the nonrepudiating party to claim damages for total breach.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Did Multi-State give ELO adequate notice of the breach?
• Did Multi-State demonstrate a "substantial impairment of the whole contract?"
Held. No. "The contract unequivocally requires that the agreement may not be terminated unless the breaching party receives written notice of the breach and such breach is not cured more than 30 days after the receipt of such notice." According to New York law "[a] person receives a notice or notification when (a) it comes to his attention; or (b) it is duly delivered to [his] place of business …" Since neither of the letters reached ELO they did not have notice.
• No. "Under § 2-612(3), Multi-State's right to cancel the entire agreement required a showing of substantial impairment of the whole contract. Whether a breach constitutes 'substantial impairment' is a question of fact." The court found no evidence that the entire contract was substantially impaired because the May 1, 1993 shipment of the supplement was delayed. The purpose of the "substantial impairment" requirement was to stop parties from canceling contracts for trivial defects. Additionally, the court determined any breach by ELO was subsequently cured. As such, the delay was not a material breach and Multi-State was still bound by the contract.
Discussion. This case demonstrates the law will not award a contracting party for their pettiness. It is interesting to read this case alongside [Jacob & Young, Inc. v. Kent].