Opinion ID: 1640458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of grower agreements

Text: The district court ruled that VFBA breached the grower agreements by failing to accept delivery of the beans covered by the agreements in a timely fashion. The district court concluded that such conduct by VFBA, coupled with the fact that the agreements could be modified only in writing, affected a cancellation of the grower agreements, and that any subsequent deliveries made by the growers became deliveries for storage. We disagree. In 11 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1305 (3d ed. 1968), it is stated that: Neither where the plaintiff's excuse for his own non-performance is the defendant's actual breach of the contract nor where that excuse is a prospective breach because of repudiation does the plaintiff terminate the contract merely by availing himself of his excuse. The contract still exists, but one party to it has a defense and an excuse for non-performance. [Footnote omitted.] Thus, assuming that VFBA's failure to accept timely delivery of the beans constituted a material breach of the grower agreements, that breach did not of itself cancel or terminate the grower agreements. Rather, the producers who had entered into the grower agreements were thereby released from their obligations under the agreements and had the right to pursue the remedies as provided in § 41-02-82(2-703), N.D.C.C. See Ziebarth v. Kalenze, 238 N.W.2d 261 (N.D.1976); Mott Equity Elevator v. Svihovec, 236 N.W.2d 900 (N.D.1975). The grower agreements, themselves, remained in existence.