Walker & Co. v. Harrison
81 N.W.2d 352 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party's failure to perform a contractual duty constitutes a material breach only if it substantially impairs the value of the contract for the injured party. A minor or trivial failure of performance does not justify the other party's repudiation of the entire contract.
Facts:
- Walker & Company agreed to construct, install, and maintain a custom neon sign for the Harrison's dry-cleaning business.
- The parties executed a 36-month written "rental agreement" for $148.50 per month, which specified that Walker & Co. would provide maintenance to keep the sign in "first-class advertising condition."
- The agreement also contained a provision stating that title to the sign would pass to the Harrisons at the conclusion of the 36-month term.
- Shortly after the sign's installation in July 1953, it was struck by a tomato, and the Harrisons observed minor rust and cobwebs.
- Herbert Harrison made repeated phone calls to Walker & Co. requesting the maintenance service as stipulated in the contract.
- Walker & Co. did not respond to the maintenance requests.
- After his calls went unanswered, Herbert Harrison sent a telegram on October 8, 1953, declaring the contract void due to Walker & Co.'s failure to maintain the sign and stating he would make no further payments.
- The Harrisons made only one monthly payment on the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Walker & Company filed a suit in assumpsit against the Harrisons in a Michigan trial court, seeking the entire balance due under the contract's acceleration clause.
- The Harrisons filed an answer and a claim of recoupment, alleging that Walker & Co. had committed a prior material breach, justifying their repudiation.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found in favor of the plaintiff, Walker & Company.
- The defendants, the Harrisons, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a lessor's failure to promptly clean a leased sign of a tomato stain, rust, and cobwebs constitute a material breach of the maintenance clause in a lease agreement, thereby justifying the lessee's repudiation of the contract and refusal to make further payments?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, J.
No. The lessor's failure to promptly clean the sign did not constitute a material breach justifying repudiation. While repudiation is a remedy for a material breach, a party who wrongly deems a breach to be material and repudiates the contract becomes the breaching party themselves. The court determines materiality by applying the multi-factor test from the Restatement of Contracts, § 275, which considers the extent to which the injured party is deprived of the contract's substantial benefit. Here, the defects—a tomato stain, minor rust, and cobwebs—were trivial and did not prevent the sign from functioning as an advertisement. Although Walker & Co.'s delay in service was irritating, it was not so significant as to defeat the essential purpose of the contract. Therefore, the Harrisons' repudiation was unwarranted and constituted a material breach, entitling Walker & Co. to damages.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational illustration of the doctrine of material breach and the significant risks associated with contract repudiation. It establishes that not every breach of contract is a material breach; the failure in performance must go to the essence of the agreement to justify termination. The court's adoption of the flexible, multi-factor Restatement test provides a framework for future courts to distinguish between minor frustrations and breaches so substantial they defeat the purpose of the contract. This decision serves as a strong caution to parties that prematurely or incorrectly declaring a contract terminated can backfire, transforming the aggrieved party into the one liable for damages.
