11
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Material breach, total breach, and discharge of duties
« on: April 24, 2006, 02:54:19 PM »
Here is my understanding...
In the Restatement, a Total breach presupposes a Material breach but not vice versa. If you have a material breach then you can suspend your performance until the breaching party performs its obligations. But, if the breaching party never performs, then you have a Total breach which completely discharges your (the non-breaching party's) performance obligations and you can now sue for both actual and future damages.
A total breach is a material breach that has not been cured within a reasonable time (to a maximum of 30 days)
A partial breach is a little different...if the breaching party has substanitally performed but not fully it constitutes a partial breach. Think of it this way...if you have a breach and it is not Material then it is Partial. A partial breach does not discharge your (the non-breaching party's) performance obligations which means that you must still perform (or else you will be in breach yourself) but you may sue for actual damages (but unlike total breach you cannot sue for future damages).
Another thing to keep in mind is what jurisdiction you fall under. The above explanation is for the restatement. If you are in a jurisdiction that follows the case law from Sackett v. Spindler there is a slight distinction to the above analysis. In a Sackett jurisdiction, a material breach is automatically a total breach, hence, there is no reasonable time to cure by the breaching party. So, once you identify a material breach in a Sackett jurisdiction you automatically discharge your performance obligations and can sue for actual and future damages. You do not need to "suspend" performance and give the breaching party reasonable time to cure.
Note: Partial breach works the same way in the Restatement as it does in Sackett
I hope this helps
In the Restatement, a Total breach presupposes a Material breach but not vice versa. If you have a material breach then you can suspend your performance until the breaching party performs its obligations. But, if the breaching party never performs, then you have a Total breach which completely discharges your (the non-breaching party's) performance obligations and you can now sue for both actual and future damages.
A total breach is a material breach that has not been cured within a reasonable time (to a maximum of 30 days)
A partial breach is a little different...if the breaching party has substanitally performed but not fully it constitutes a partial breach. Think of it this way...if you have a breach and it is not Material then it is Partial. A partial breach does not discharge your (the non-breaching party's) performance obligations which means that you must still perform (or else you will be in breach yourself) but you may sue for actual damages (but unlike total breach you cannot sue for future damages).
Another thing to keep in mind is what jurisdiction you fall under. The above explanation is for the restatement. If you are in a jurisdiction that follows the case law from Sackett v. Spindler there is a slight distinction to the above analysis. In a Sackett jurisdiction, a material breach is automatically a total breach, hence, there is no reasonable time to cure by the breaching party. So, once you identify a material breach in a Sackett jurisdiction you automatically discharge your performance obligations and can sue for actual and future damages. You do not need to "suspend" performance and give the breaching party reasonable time to cure.
Note: Partial breach works the same way in the Restatement as it does in Sackett
I hope this helps
Discussion
Resources