When all of the grievances are considered, separately and together, they present no more than technical variances from the letter of the contract, and courts will not deny enforcement in the face of a showing of substantial performance and in the absence of a detriment. It is apparent here that the alleged breach of the contract could in no way be said to go to the 'essence' of the agreement . . . . In Phoenix Mut. In Bay City Const. Furthermore, 'substantial performance' of a contract does not contemplate exact performance of every detail, but performance of all important parts.
Substantial performance is the antithesis of material breach.
Thus, there can be no 'substantial performance' where the part unperformed touches the fundamental purpose of the contract and defeats the object of the parties entering into the contract. Although the doctrine of substantial performance most often applies to construction contracts, it is not necessarily limited to that context and may apply to any contract. Ujdur also emphasizes that determination of whether substantial performance exists in a particular case is a question of fact. We conclude that the trial court should not have resolved this issue on a motion for summary judgment. The question is whether the Enfields substantially performed the provisions of the agreement in question.