Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Recovery-For-Benefits-Conferred-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:54:01+00:00

Document:
As we have seen in treating of discharge of contract by breach, a party to a contract is not discharged from liability to perform by the failure of the other party to perform a part of his promise which is merely subsidiary, and does not go to the essence of the contract; nor, where a contract consists of several promises based on several considerations, so that the promises are divisible, does a failure to perform one or more discharge the other party from liability to pay for those that have been performed. In these cases the party thus partially in default may recover for what he has done, leaving the other party to recover damages from him for his partial breach. The recovery is on the contract itself. Where, however, the breach is not merely of a subsidiary promise, or of one or more of several promises, but of a term which the parties regarded as of the essence of the contract, or there is a failure to fully perform an indivisible prom- • ise, the question arises whether the other party is liable for the benefits he has received from the partial performance. That he is not liable on the contract itself is clear, for he can only recover on it by showing that he has substantially performed what he has agreed to perform as a condition precedent to the other's liability. The other party has not agreed to pay him for a partial performance, and any liability must be created by the law without agreement, or quasi ex contractu.
23 Russell v. Bell, 10 Mees. & W. 340; Willson v. Foree, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 110, 5 Am. Dec 195; Toledo, W. & W. Ry. Co. v. Chew, 67 I11. 378; Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Barnard, 84 Mich. 632, 48 N. W. 280; Goodwin v. Griffis, 88 N. Y. 629; Walker v. Duncan, 68 Wis. 624, 32 N. W. 689; Lehmann v. Schmidt, 87 Cal. 15, 25 Pac. 161; Blalock v. Phillips, 38 Ga. 216; Dietz's Assignee v. Sut-cliffe, 80 Ky. 650; Morford v. White, 53 Ind. 547; Newton Mfg. Co. v. White, 53 Ga. 395; Evans v. Miller, 58 Miss. 120, 38 Am. Rep. 313; Logan v. Wallis, 76 N. C. 416. See "Action," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 28; Cent. Dig. §§ 196-215; "Assaumpsit," Cent. Dig. §§ 42-54.
24 Jones v. Hoar, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 285; Allen v. Ford, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 217; Androscoggin Water Power Co. v. Metcalf, 65 Me. 40; Bethlehem Borough v. Fire Co., 81 Pa. 445; Sandeen v. Railroad Co., 79 Mo. 278; Galloway v.
Holmes, 1 Doug. (Mich.) 330 (but see Aldine Mfg. Co. v. Barnard, 84 Mich. G32, 48 N. W. 280); Winchell v. Noyes, 23 Vt. 303; Strother's Adm'r v. Butler, 17 Ala. 733; Ferguson v. Carrington, 9 Barn. & C. 59. But see Russell v. Bell. 10 Mees. & W. 340. See "Action," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 28; Cent. Dig. §§ 196-215: "Assumpsit." Cent. Dig. §§ 42-54.
25 Ante, pp. 539, 578, 579, and cases cited in notes 19, 20; Carbon Hill Coal Co. v. Cunningham, 153 Ala. 573, 44 South. 1016. See "Work and Labor," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 9, 14; Cent. Dig. §§ 23-83.
26 Wolfe v. Howes, 20 N. Y. 197, 75 Am. Dec. 388; Robinson v. Davison, L. R. 6 Exch. 269; Boast v. Firth, L. R. 4 C. P. 1; Spalding v. Rosa, 71 N. Y. 40, 27 Am. Rep. 7; Jones v. Judd, 4 N. Y. 412; Lakeman v. Pollard, 43 Me. 463, 69 Am. Dec. 77; Green v. Gilbert, 21 Wis. 395; Clark v. Gilbert, 26 N. Y. 279, 84 Am. Dec. 189; Martus v. Houck, 39 Mich. 431, 33 Am. Rep. 409; Jennings v. Lyons, 39 Wis. 553, 20 Am. Rep. 57; Pinches v. Lutheran Church, 55 Conn. 183, 10 Atl. 264; Shultz v. Johnson, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 497; Adams v. Crosby, 48 Ind. 153; Harrington v. Iron-Works Co., 119 Mass. 82; Stewart v. Loring, 5 Allen (Mass.) 306, 81 Am. Dec. 747; Fuller v. Brown, 11 Mete. (Mass.) 440; Hayward v. Leonard, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 181, 19 Am. Dec. 268: Scully v. Kirkpatrick, 79 Pa. 324, 21 Am. Rep. 62; Allen v. Baker, 86 N. C. 91, 41 Am. Rep. 444; Gilman v. Hall, 11 Vt 510, 34 Am. Dec. 700; Fenton v. Clark, 11 Vt. 557; Hubbard v. Belden, 27 Vt 645; Yerrington v. Green, 7 R. I. 589, 84 Am. Dec. 578; Norris v. School Dist, 12 Me. 293, 28 Am. Dec. 182; Wadleigh v. Town of Sutton, 6 N. H. 15, 23 Am. Dec, 704; Mooney v. Iron Co., 82 Mich. 263, 46 N. W. 376; Parker v. Macomber, 17 R. I. 674, 24 Atl. 464, 16 L. R. A. 858; ante, p. 586. See "Work and Labor," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 9; Cent. Dig. §§ 23-33.
28 Appleby v. Myers, L. R. 2 C. P. 651; Huyett Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Edison Co., 167 I11. 233, 47 N. E. 384, 59 Am. St. Rep. 272; Krause v. Bd. of Trustees, 162 Ind. 278, 70 N. E. 264, 65 L. R. A. Ill, 102 Am. St. Rep. 203, 1 Ann. Cas. 460. See "Work and Labor," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 14; Cent. Dig. §§ 23-53.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 9
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14