347 Mich. 630
Plaintiff brought an action against defendant for breach of a written contract between the parties for the lease of a sign advertising defendant’s business. Defendant stopped making payments to plaintiff after attempting to get plaintiff to maintain the sign as specified in a contract between the parties.
The court here found no valid ground for defendant’s repudiation and failure to make further payments to plaintiff. Defendant’s failure thereafter to comply with the terms of the contract was itself a material breach, entitling plaintiff to judgment. The court determined that there was no error in the judgment rendered against defendant for the cash price of the sign, for such services and maintenance as were extended and accepted, and interest upon the amount in default.
Defendant appealed from a judgment for plaintiff in a breach of contract action regarding the lease of an advertising sign that defendant obtained through a contract with plaintiff.
a party attempting to repudiate a contract must convince the court that the other party has materially breached the contract.
In determining the materiality of a failure fully to perform a promise the following circumstances are influential: (a) The extent to which the injured party will obtain the substantial benefit which he could have reasonably anticipated; (b) The extent to which the injured party may be adequately compensated in damages for lack of complete performance; (c) The extent to which the party failing to perform has already partly performed or made preparations for performance; (d) The greater or less hardship on the party failing to perform in terminating the contract; (e) The willful, negligent or innocent behavior of the party failing to perform; (f) The greater or less uncertainty that the party failing to perform will perform the remainder of the contract.
The court affirmed the judgment for plaintiff in a breach of contract action regarding the lease of an advertising sign, finding no error.