Ms. Hopkins offers no other response to the plaintiff's motion. It is basic hornbook law that an adverse party's breach of contract may excuse a party's nonperformance of his contractual obligations. The party first committing a substantial breach of a contract cannot maintain an action against the other contracting party for a subsequent failure to perform if the promises are dependent. The adverse party's breach, however, must be material to excuse such nonperformance. Mississippi also follows the application of these principles.
Termination is permitted only for a material breach.
Materiality is ordinarily a question of fact, e.g., Hensley v. Upon review of the record in this matter, the undersigned cannot say that any reasonable juror would find that the plaintiff has committed a material breach of the settlement contract. The defendant claims that the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to ensure that the defendant received disbursements and accounting regarding Canadian semen sales. Goodwill Shasta River Ranch . . . However, there is an appreciable lack of record evidence concerning whether any Canadian semen sales by the T Bar C Cattle Company were even made so as to require an accounting or disbursement to the defendant.