Opinion ID: 1191215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: substantial performance by peck

Text: Holiday Inns also argues that there was no basis for the jury to find substantial performance by Peck so as to justify a determination that he was not in breach of the contract on July 1, 1968. It is apparent that the issue of substantial performance only arises if the altered date of the contract controls. Without the alteration, Peck had 9 months from February 23, 1968  or until November 23, 1968  within which time to commence construction, but Holiday Inns declared the contract null and void by its letter of July 1, 1968. The jury's answers to the interrogatories indicate that it found the May and July deadlines not to be binding. Accordingly, Holiday Inns was in anticipatory breach of the contract by reason of its July 1, 1968 repudiation. Therefore, we need not decide whether there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the question of substantial performance. The judgment below is affirmed. Affirmed.