The doctrine of "substantial performance" saves a party who has largely fulfilled their obligations under a contract from suffering major loss merely because they have unintentionally fallen short in some particular that does not affect the essence of the contract. There are so many ways for performance of a contract to give rise to dissatisfaction that the courts have been forced to analyze the matter in much more subtle terms than "breached" or "not breached." The nonperforming party will likely try to excuse the breach and may try to place blame on the other party. To help support their claim for breach, the non-breaching party should have fulfilled their contractual obligation up to the time the breach occurred and should not have interfered with the other party's performance in any way. When a breach of contract occurs, the breaching party can be sued for damages by the other party, and the non-breaching party is no longer held to their previous contractual obligations. The situation becomes more complex when the argument is over the quality of materials, the timing of work, or a similar subject. Of course, if one party fails entirely to perform the contract, or totally prevents performance of the other party, the situation is straightforward. Their justified prevention or interference with the performance of the other party is also a breach. If one party deviates from the terms of the contract, and the other party does not agree to this deviation and the deviation is serious enough to make a real difference in the intended result of the contract, then the deviating party is said to have breached the contract.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |