Opinion ID: 2995635
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Ill App.3d 840, 844 (2d Dist. 1973)). As

Text: a result, even if the factfinder concludes that timely performance is an essential element of the contract, he or she must also decide whether to award damages and require counterperformance in spite of the breach. See 8 Corbin on Contracts sec. 37.3 (2000) (Equity limits our power to determine our own contractual rights and obligations.). The factfinder must take into account the totality of the circumstances and focus on the inherent justice of the mat ter. This analysis may not be made through a mechanical process, Sahadi, 706 F.2d at 198, and case law makes clear that it is impossible to provide an exhaustive, dispositive checklist of factors for the trier of fact to consider in every situation. See id.; Restatement (Second) of Contracts sec. 241 cmt. a (1981). However, at a minimum, the focus should be on factors such as: whether the breach defeated the bargained-for objective of the parties; whether the non-breaching party suffered disproportionate prejudice; and whether undue economic inefficiency and waste, or an unreasonable or unfair advantage would inure to the non-breaching party./4 Arrow Master, 12 F.3d at 715; Sahadi, 706 F.2d at 196; Regan v. Garfield Ridge Trust & Sav. Bank, 220 Ill.App.3d 1078 (2d Dist. 1991); Chariot Holdings Ltd. v. Eastmet Corp., 153 Ill.App.3d 50 (1st Dist. 1987); O’Malley v. Cummings, 86