13.1 Discharge of Contract Duties by Performance or Breach

Once a contract is entered, a party is liable to perform agreed-to contractual duties until performance is discharged. Stated another way, if a party fails to perform under a contract without being discharged, liability for damages arises. This Chapter deals with how contractual duties are discharged.

Discharge by Performance

The term performance refers to the fulfillment of obligations specified in a contract. When parties enter into a contract, they agree to perform certain actions or provide certain goods or services as outlined in the contract terms. Once the contractual duty is fulfilled, the contract can be discharged by performance. The modern trend at common law (and explicit under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Section 1-203) is that the parties have a good-faith duty to each other perform. There is in every contract “an implied covenant of good faith” (honesty in fact in the transaction) that the parties will deal fairly, keep their promises, and not frustrate the other party’s reasonable expectations of what was given and what was received.

Full Performance

Full performance occurs when one party fulfills all of its obligations under the contract in the exact manner specified and without any deviation. Full performance, also called complete performance, of the contractual obligation discharges the duty. For example, in a contract to plumb a new bathroom, if Ralph the plumber does a fine job of plumbing Betty’s new bathroom, she pays him. Both are discharged by full performance.

Under the UCC, Section 2-601 requires that the goods delivered according to the contract be the exact things ordered—that there be a perfect tender (unless the parties agree otherwise).

Substantial Performance

Sometimes, a party may not fulfill every detail of the contract, but the performance is significant enough that the other party receives what was essentially bargained for. In such cases, the performance is considered substantial performance, and will serve to discharge a contract. However, damages may be owed in an amount that would compensate for the minor deficiencies in performance. These minor deficiencies would amount to a breach of contract, but the breaches would not be material. Therefore, these minor breaches would not prevent the duty from being discharged. If Ralph does all the plumbing for Betty’s new bathroom but does not return once the bathroom is completely finished to hook up the toilet feed, he has not really “plumbed the new bathroom.” He has left a small portion of the agreed upon work undone. In this situation where there has been substantial, although not full performance, the plumber would receive payment for the value of the plumbing services that were completed, and the homeowner would have a claim for damages for whatever it will cost to have the hook-up completed.

At classic common law, a duty could be performed completely or breached, with no middle ground. This would mean that the plumber in the scenario above would not be entitled to any payment at all. But under modern theories, the doctrine of substantial performance developed: if one side has substantially, but not completely, performed, so that the other side has received a benefit, the nonbreaching party owes something for the value received. What constitutes substantial performance is a question of fact, with the contest being whether a breach has gone beyond substantial performance and become a material breach.

Satisfactory Performance

Satisfactory performance in contract law refers to the fulfillment of contractual obligations to a degree that is acceptable to the other party in a contract. If the other party is satisfied with the performance and it meets their expectations, it is generally considered satisfactory and will discharge the contract. In other words, the standard to discharge the obligation is personal satisfaction. Using the plumbing example, if Ralph installs a Rainforest showerhead that is very different than the one Betty selected, but Betty decides she likes this showerhead better, her personal satisfaction will discharge the contractual obligation even though the performance does not meet the requirements of the contract as originally agreed.

Parties may contract to perform to one side’s personal satisfaction. Andy tells Anne, a prospective client, that he will cut her hair better than her regular hairdresser, and that if she is not satisfied, she need not pay him. Andy cuts her hair, but Anne frowns and says, “I don’t like it.” Assume that Andy’s work is excellent. Whether Anne must pay depends on the standard for judging to be employed—a standard of either objective or subjective satisfaction. The objective standard is that which would satisfy the reasonable purchaser. Most courts apply this standard when the contract involves the performance of a mechanical job or the sale of a machine whose performance is capable of objective measurement. So even if the obligee requires performance to his “personal satisfaction,” the courts will hold that the obligor has performed if the service performed or the goods produced are, in fact, satisfactory. By contrast, if the goods or services contracted for involve personal judgment and taste, the duty to pay will be discharged if the obligee states personal (subjective) dissatisfaction. No reason at all need be given, but it must be for a good-faith reason, not just to escape payment.

Material Breach

In addition to being discharged by performance as described above, a contract can be discharged by material nonperformance of the contractual duty. A material breach is a significant failure to fulfill the terms of a contract that goes to the root or essence of the agreement. It occurs when one party fails to perform a substantial and essential obligation under the contract. That failure of performance deprives the other party of the benefit they reasonably expected to receive from the agreement. Material breach substantially impairs the value of the contract for the non-breaching party. The non-breaching party has the right to consider the contract terminated and is generally released from further performance obligations under the contract. Going back to the plumbing example, if Ralph doesn’t do any work at all on Betty’s bathroom, or almost none, then Betty owes him nothing. She—the non-breaching party—is discharged, and Ralph is liable for breach of contract.

Under UCC Section 2-106(4), a party that ends a contract breached by the other party is said to have effected a cancellation. The cancelling party retains the right to seek a remedy for breach of the whole contract or any unperformed obligation. The UCC distinguishes cancellation from termination, which occurs when either party exercises a lawful right to end the contract other than for breach. When a contract is terminated, all executory duties are discharged on both sides, but if there has been a partial breach, the right to seek a remedy survives.

Anticipatory Breach and Demand for Reasonable Assurances

Anticipatory breach, also known as anticipatory repudiation, occurs in contract law when one party to a contract clearly and unequivocally communicates to the other party that they do not intend to fulfill their contractual obligations before the performance is due. In other words, this is when a promisor announces, before the time his performance is due, that he will not perform a contractual duty owed. Using the plumbing example again, we know that if Ralph doesn’t do any work at all on Betty’s bathroom there is a material breach. But, say that Ralph calls Betty a week before he is supposed to show up to work on her bathroom and tells her that he isn’t going to do any work on her plumbing, this is an anticipatory breach.

A person cannot fail to perform a duty before performance is due, but the law allows the promisee to treat the situation as a material breach that gives rise to a claim for damages and discharges the obligee from performing duties required of him under the contract. The common-law rule was first recognized in the well-known 1853 British case Hochster v. De La Tour. In April, De La Tour hired Hochster as his courier, the job to commence in June. In May, De La Tour changed his mind and told Hochster not to bother to report for duty. Before June, Hochster secured an appointment as courier to Lord Ashburton, but that job was not to begin until July. Also in May, Hochster sued De La Tour, who argued that he should not have to pay Hochster because Hochster had not stood ready and willing to begin work in June, having already agreed to work for Lord Ashburton. The court ruled for the plaintiff Hochster:

[I]t is surely much more rational, and more for the benefit of both parties, that, after the renunciation of the agreement by the defendant, the plaintiff should be at liberty to consider himself absolved from any future performance of it, retaining his right to sue for any damage he has suffered from the breach of it. Thus, instead of remaining idle and laying out money in preparations which must be useless, he is at liberty to seek service under another employer, which would go in mitigation of the damages to which he would otherwise be entitled for a breach of the contract. It seems strange that the defendant, after renouncing the contract, and absolutely declaring that he will never act under it, should be permitted to object that faith is given to his assertion, and that an opportunity is not left to him of changing his mind.

Another type of anticipatory breach consists of any voluntary act by a party that destroys, or seriously impairs, that party’s ability to perform the promise made to the other side. If a seller of land, having agreed to sell a lot to one person at a date certain, sells it instead to a third party before that time, there is an anticipatory breach. If Ralph the Plumber is supposed to plumb Betty’s bathroom in June, but he announces that he is taking a month-long trip to Europe in June, this is an anticipatory breach. In the first instance, there would be no point to showing up at the lawyer’s office when the date arrives to await the deed, so the law gives a right to sue when the land is sold to the other person. In the second instance, there would be no point to waiting until June for the plumber to not do the job, so the law gives the right to sue when the future nonperformance is announced.

These same general rules prevail for contracts for the sale of goods under UCC Section 2-610.

Related to the concept of anticipatory breach is the idea that the obligee has a right to demand reasonable assurances from the obligor that contractual duties will be performed. If the obligee makes such a demand for reasonable assurances and no adequate assurances are forthcoming, the obligee may assume that the obligor will commit an anticipatory breach, and consider it so. That is, after making the contract, the obligee may come upon the disquieting news that the obligor’s ability to perform is shaky. A change in financial condition occurs, an unknown claimant to rights in land appears, a labor strike arises, or any of a number of situations may arise that will interfere with the carrying out of contractual duties. Under such circumstances, the obligee has the right to a demand for reasonable assurance that the obligor will perform as contractually obligated. The general reason for such a rule is given in UCC Section 2-609(1), which states that a contract “imposes an obligation on each party that the other’s expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired.” Moreover, an obligee would be foolish not to make alternative arrangements, if possible, when it becomes obvious that his original obligor will be unable to perform. The obligee must have reasonable grounds to believe that the obligor will breach. The fear must be that of a failure of performance that would amount to a total breach; a minor defect that can be cured and that at most would give rise to an offset in price for damages will not generally support a demand for assurances.

Under UCC Section 2-609(1), the demand must be in writing, but at common law the demand may be oral if it is reasonable in view of the circumstances. If the obligor fails within a reasonable time to give adequate assurance, the obligee may treat the failure to do so as an anticipatory repudiation, or she may wait to see if the obligor might change his mind and perform.

13.2 Discharge by Conditions

Usually contracts consist of an exchange of promises—a pledge or commitment by each party that somebody will or will not do something. Andy’s promise to cut Anne’s lawn “over the weekend” in return for Anne’s promise to pay twenty-five dollars is a commitment to have the lawn mowed by Sunday night or Monday morning. These promises are known as independent or unconditional, because their performance does not depend on any outside event. Such promises, if contractually binding, create a present duty to perform.

Not all promises to perform under a contract are unconditional; a promise may be subject to a condition as well. A condition is an event the happening or nonhappening of which gives rise to a duty to perform (or discharges a duty to perform). Conditions may be express or implied; they may also be precedent, concurrent, subsequent, or to the satisfaction of a party.

Express Conditions

Express conditions are stated in words in the contract, orally or written. Andy promises to mow Anne’s lawn “provided it doesn’t rain.” “Provided it doesn’t rain” is an express condition. If rain comes, there is no duty to cut the lawn, and Andy’s failure to do so is not a breach of promise. Express conditions are usually introduced by language such as “provided that,” “if,” “when,” “assuming that,” “as soon as,” “after,” and the like. 

Implied Conditions

Implied conditions are unexpressed but understood to be part of the contract. If Mr. Olson guarantees Jack’s used car for ninety days, it is implied that his obligation to fix any defects doesn’t arise until Jack lets him know the car is defective.

Condition Precedent

A condition precedent is a term in a contract (express or implied) that requires performance only in the event something else happens first. Jack will buy a car from Mr. Olson if Jack gets financing. “If Jack gets financing” is a condition precedent.

Condition Concurrent (or Simultaneous)

A concurrent condition arises when the duty to perform the contract is simultaneous: the promise of a landowner to transfer title to the purchaser and the purchaser to tender payment to the seller. The duty of each to perform is conditioned on the performance by the other. As a practical matter, of course, somebody has to make the first move, proffering deed or tendering the check, so simultaneous here means within the same transaction, and not at the exact same moment in time.

Condition Subsequent

A condition that terminates an already existing duty of performance is known as a condition subsequent. Ralph agrees to do preventive plumbing maintenance on an apartment building while the landlord is traveling across country for several weeks. On the landlord’s return, the obligation to provide the maintenance is terminated.

Condition of Timeliness

Typically, if a contract is not performed exactly on time it will not result in a material breach. The promisee has to accept the performance and deduct any losses caused by the delay. But, if the promisee does not want to accept performance that is not on time, the contract can require that “time is of the essence.” This makes time, or timeliness, a condition of the contract. Time as a condition can be made explicit in a clause reciting that time is of the essence. If there is no express clause, the courts will read it in when the purpose of the contract was clearly to provide for performance at or by a certain time, and the promisee will gain little from late performance. But even express clauses are subject to a rule of reason, and if the promisor would suffer greatly by enforcement of the clause (and the promisee would suffer only slightly or not at all from a refusal to invoke it), the courts will generally excuse the untimely performance, as long as it was completed within a reasonable time. A builder’s failure to finish a house by July 1 will not discharge the buyer’s obligation to pay if the house is finished a week or even a month later, although the builder will be liable to the buyer for expenses incurred because of the lateness (storage charges for furniture, costs for housing during the interim, extra travel, and the like).

Condition of Satisfaction of a Third Party

The duty to make a contract payment may be conditioned on the satisfaction of a third party. Building contracts frequently make the purchaser’s duty to pay conditional on the builder’s receipt of an architect’s certificate of compliance with all contractual terms; road construction contracts often require that the work be done “to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.” These conditions can be onerous. The builder has already erected the structure and cannot “return” what he has done. Nevertheless, because the purchaser wants assurance that the building (obviously a major purchase) or road meets his specifications, the courts will hold the contractor to the condition unless it is impossible to provide a certificate (e.g., architect may have died) or the architect has acted in bad faith, or the purchaser has somehow prevented the certificate from issuing. The third party’s refusal to issue a certificate needs to be reasonable.

13.3 Discharge by Agreement

Parties are free to agree to almost any contract they want, and they are free to agree to end the contract whenever they want. There are several ways this is done.

Mutual Rescission

The parties may agree to give up the duties to perform, called mutual rescission. This may be by a formal written release saying the obligor is discharged upon delivery of the writing or upon occurrence of a condition; or an obligation may be discharged by a contract not to sue about it.

The Restatement calls this an agreement of rescission.  An agreement to rescind will be given effect even though partial performance has been made or one or both parties have a claim for partial breach. The agreement need not be in writing or even expressed in words. By their actions, such as failure to take steps to perform or enforce, the parties may signal their mutual intent to rescind. Andy starts to mow Anne’s lawn as they agreed. He begins the job, but it is unbearably hot. She sees how uncomfortable he is and readily agrees with him when he says, “Why don’t we just forget the whole thing?” Andy’s duty to finish mowing is discharged, as is Anne’s duty to pay Andy, either for the whole job or for the part he has done.

Research on business executives suggest that in the great majority of cases in which one party wishes to “cancel an order,” the other party permits it without renegotiation, even though the cancellation amounts to a repudiation of a contract. Since the ‘order’ in this situation is the outcome of a contract, cancelling an order is the same as breaching a contract. This is why being able to agree to mutually rescind a contractual obligation is very important in doing business.

The legal consequences of most of these cancellations are an agreement of rescission. Would there still be damages as a consequence? Under UCC Section 2-720, the use of a word like “cancellation” or “rescission” does not by itself amount to a renunciation of the right to sue for breach of a provision that occurred before the rescission. If the parties mean to discharge each other fully from all duties owed, they must say so explicitly. Actions continue to speak more loudly than words, however, and in law, so can inactions. Legal rights under contracts may be lost by both parties if they fail to act; by abandoning their claims, they can affect rescission.

Waiver

A second means of discharge is by waiver, whereby a party voluntarily gives up a right she has under a contract but doesn’t give up the entire right to performance by the other side. Tenant is supposed to pay rent on the first of the month, but because his employer pays on the tenth, Tenant pays Landlady on that day. If Landlady accepts the late payment without objection, she has waived her right to insist on payment by the first of the month, unless the lease provides that no waiver occurs from the acceptance of any late payments.

Substituted Agreement

The parties may enter into a novation, either a new contract or one whereby a new person is substituted for the original obligor, and the latter is discharged, with the consent of all involved parties. If Mr. Olson is obligated to deliver a car to Jack, Jack and Mr. Olson may agree that Dewey Dealer should deliver the car to Jack instead of Mr. Olson; the latter is discharged by this novation. A substituted agreement may also simply replace the original one between the original parties.

Accord and Satisfaction

In an accord and satisfaction the parties to a contract (usually a disputed one) agree to substitute some performance different from what was originally agreed, and once this new agreement is executed, the original contract (as well as the more recent accord) is satisfied. But before then, the original agreement is only suspended: if the obligor does not satisfy the accord, the other side can sue on the original obligation or on the accord. This process is described more fully in the Chapter on Consideration.

13.4 Discharge by Operation of Law when Performance Becomes Very Difficult

Every contract contains some element of risk: the buyer may run out of money before he can pay; the seller may run out of goods before he can deliver; the cost of raw materials may skyrocket, throwing off the manufacturer’s financial calculations. Should the obligor’s luck run out, ordinarily he is stuck with the consequences. He must either perform or risk paying damages for breach of contract, even if his failure is due to events beyond his control. Of course, an obligor can always limit his liability by using the contract language to minimize risk. For instance, instead of obligating himself to deliver one million widgets, he can restrict his obligation to “one million units or factory output, whichever is less.” Instead of guaranteeing to finish a job by a certain date, he can agree to use his “best efforts” to do so. Similarly, damages in the event of breach can be limited. A party can even include a clause canceling the contract in the event of an untoward happening. But if these provisions are absent, the obligor is generally held to the terms of his bargain. To avoid the harsh consequences of meeting the terms of a contract that has been impacted by circumstances outside the parties’ control, there are exceptions which include the concepts of impossibility, impracticability, and frustration of purpose.

Impossibility

If performance is impossible, the duty is discharged on grounds of impossibility. The categories here are death or incapacity of a personal services contractor, destruction of a thing necessary for performance, and performance prohibited by government order.

Death or Incapacity of a Personal Services Contractor

Whether the death of a promisee impacts the performance of a contractual duty depends on the type of contract at issue. If the contract is personal in nature, performance is usually excused due to death or incapacity. If Buyer makes a contract to purchase a car and dies before delivery, Buyer’s estate could be held liable; it is not impossible (for the estate) to perform. But, the estate of a painter hired to complete a portrait cannot be sued for damages if the painter dies before she could complete the work.

Destruction or Deterioration of a Thing Necessary for Performance

When a specific object is necessary for the obligor’s performance, its destruction or deterioration making its use impracticable (or its failure to come into existence) discharges the obligor’s duty. Diane’s Dyers contracts to buy the annual wool output of the Sheepish Ranch, but the sheep die of an epidemic disease before they can be shorn. Since the specific thing for which the contract was made has been destroyed, Sheepish is discharged from its duty to supply Diane’s with wool, and Diane’s has no claim against the Ranch. However, if the contract had called for a quantity of wool, without specifying that it was to be from Sheepish’s flock, the duty would not be discharged; since wool is available on the open market, Sheepish could buy that and resell it to Diane’s.

Performance Prohibited by Government Regulation or Order

When a government promulgates a rule after a contract is made, and the rule either bars performance or will make it impracticable, the obligor’s duty is discharged. An obligor is not required to break the law and risk the consequences. Financier Bank contracts to sell World Mortgage Company certain collateralized loan instruments. The federal government, in a bank reform measure, prohibits such sales. The contract is discharged. If the Supreme Court later declared the prohibition unconstitutional, World Mortgage’s duty to buy (or Financier Bank’s to sell) would not revive.

Common-Law Impracticability

Impracticability is said to exist when there is a radical departure from the circumstances that the parties reasonably contemplated would exist at the time they entered into the contract; on such facts, the courts might grant relief. They will do so when extraordinary circumstances (often called “acts of God” or “force majeure”) make it unjust to hold a party liable for performance. Although the justification for judicial relief could be found in an implied condition in all contracts that extraordinary events shall not occur, the Restatement eschews so obvious a bootstrap logic and adopts the language of UCC Section 2-615(a), which states that the crux of the analysis is whether the nonoccurrence of the extraordinary circumstance was “a basic assumption on which the contract was made.” If it was—if, that is, the parties assumed that the circumstance would not occur—then the duty is discharged if the circumstance later does occur.

In one well-known case, Autry v. Republic Productions, the famous cowboy movie star Gene Autry had a contract to perform to the defendant. He was drafted into the army in 1942; it was, temporarily at least, impossible for him to perform his movie contractual obligations incurred prior to his service. When he was discharged in 1945, he sued to be relieved of the prewar obligations. The court took notice that there had been a long interruption in Autry’s career and of “the great decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar”—postwar inflation—and determined that to require him to perform under the old contract’s terms would work a “substantial hardship” on him. A world war is an extraordinary circumstance. The temporary impossibility had transformed into impracticability.

Impracticability refers to the performance, not to the party doing it. Only if the performance is impracticable is the obligor discharged. The distinction is between “the thing cannot be done” and “I cannot do it.” The former refers to that which is objectively impracticable, and the latter to that which is subjectively impracticable. That a duty is subjectively impracticable does not excuse it if the circumstances that made the duty difficult are not extraordinary. A buyer is liable for the purchase price of a house, and his inability to raise the money does not excuse him or allow him to escape from a suit for damages when the seller tenders the deed.  If Andy promises to transport Anne to the football stadium for ten dollars, he cannot wriggle out of his agreement because someone smashed into his car (rendering it inoperable) a half hour before he was due to pick her up. He could rent a car or take her in a taxi, even though that will cost considerably more than the sum she agreed to pay him. But if the agreement was that he would transport her in his car, then the circumstances make his performance objectively impracticable—the equivalent of impossible—and he is excused.

Commercial Impracticability

This common-law concept of impracticability has been adopted by the UCC. When performance cannot be undertaken except with extreme difficulty or at highly unreasonable expense, it might be excused on the theory of commercial impracticability. However, “impracticable” (the action is impossible) is not the same as “impractical” (the action would yield an insufficient return or would have little practical value). The courts allow a considerable degree of fluctuation in market prices, inflation, weather, and other economic and natural conditions before holding that an extraordinary circumstance has occurred. A manufacturer that based its selling price on last year’s costs for raw materials could not avoid its contracts by claiming that inflation within the historical range had made it difficult or unprofitable to meet its commitments. Examples of circumstances that could excuse might be severe limitations of supply due to war, embargo, or a natural disaster. Thus, a ship-owner who contracted with a purchaser to carry goods to a foreign port would be excused if an earthquake destroyed the harbor or if war broke out and the military authorities threatened to sink all vessels that entered the harbor. But if the ship-owner had planned to steam through a canal that is subsequently closed when a hostile government seizes it, his duty is not discharged if another route is available, even if the route is longer and consequently more expensive.

Frustration of Purpose

If the parties made a basic assumption, express or implied, that certain circumstances would not arise, but those circumstances do arise, then a party is discharged from performing his duties if his principal purpose in making the contract falls under the doctrine of frustration of purpose. The frustration of purpose doctrine comes into play when circumstances make the value of one party’s performance virtually worthless to the other. This is not a rule of objective impossibility. It operates even though the parties easily might be able to carry out their contractual duties. The frustration of purpose rule does not permit one party to escape a contract simply because he will make less money than he had planned or because one potential benefit of the contract has disappeared. The purpose that is frustrated must be the core of the contract, known and understood by both parties, and the level of frustration must be severe; that is, the value of the contract to the party seeking to be discharged must be destroyed or nearly destroyed.

The classic illustration of frustration of purpose is the litigation that gave birth to the rule: the so-called coronation cases. In 1901, when King Edward VII was due to be crowned following the death of Queen Victoria, a parade route was announced for the coronation. Scores of people rented rooms in buildings that lined the streets of the route to watch the grand spectacle. But the king fell ill, and the procession was canceled. Many expectant viewers failed to pay, and the building owners took them to court; many lessees who had paid took the owners to court to seek refunds. The court declared that the lessees were not liable because the purpose of the contract had been frustrated by the king’s illness.

Supervening government regulations (though here different from illegality), floods that destroy buildings in which an event was to take place, and business failures may all contribute to frustration of purpose. But there can be no general rule: the circumstances of each case are determinative. Suppose, for example, that a manufacturer agrees to supply a crucial circuit board to a computer maker who intends to sell his machine and software to the government for use in the international space station’s ventilation systems. After the contract is made but before the circuit boards are delivered, the government decides to scrap that particular space station module. The computer manufacturer writes the circuit board maker, canceling the contract. Whether the manufacturer is discharged depends on the commercial prospects for the computer and the circuit board. If the circuit board can be used only in the particular computer, and it in turn is only of use on the space station, the duty to take the boards is discharged. But if the computer can be sold elsewhere, or the circuit boards can be used in other computers that the manufacturer makes, it is liable for breach of contract, since its principal purpose—selling computers—is not frustrated.

As before, the parties can provide in the contract that the duty is absolute and that no supervening event shall give rise to discharge by reason of frustration of purpose.

---

References

Apache Plaza, Ltd. Midwest Sav. Ass’n, 456 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. App. 1990).

Autry v. Republic Productions, 180 P.2d 144 (Calif. 1947).

Christy v. Pilkinton, 273 S.W.2d 533 (Ark. 1954).

Crum v. Grant, 692 P.2d 147 (Or. App., 1984).

Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 Ellis & Blackburn 678 (Q.B. 1853).

Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 237(d).

Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 261.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 283.

Sociological Review 28, no. 1 (1963): 55, 61.

Stewart Macaulay, “Non-contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study,” American

Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-106(3).

Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-615.

Uniform Commercial Code, Section 2-725.