Opinion ID: 2633548
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Express Term

Text: A breach of contract is non-performance of any contractual duty of immediate performance. Idaho Power Co., 134 Idaho at 746, 9 P.3d at 1212. It is a failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of a contract. Id. A substantial or material breach of contract is one which touches the fundamental purpose of the contract and defeats the object of the parties in entering into the contract. Ervin Const. Co. v. Van Orden, 125 Idaho 695, 699, 874 P.2d 506, 510 (1993). Whether a breach of contract is material is a question of fact. Id. at 700, 874 P.2d at 511. Independence contends Hecla materially breached its duty to consult with Independence. Specifically, Independence argues the duty to consult was not limited to the initial work program described in Article IV. Again, Article IV addresses the initial work program and includes the following agreement: [T]he location and extent of any of the laterals, crosscuts, drifts or other openings and the location and extent of any diamond drilling [related to the work program] may be modified at the option of Hecla. It is understood, however, that the Property Owners' geologists and engineers shall have the right to inspect the work being performed by Hecla under this Agreement and shall be consulted and expected to offer suggestions and advice with respect thereto. Independence asserts the under this Agreement language means Hecla must consult with Independence regarding all of the work Hecla performs pursuant to the contract. By not seeking advice before mining out the 4900-foot level, Independence contends, Hecla materially breached its duty to consult. We find Independence's argument unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the word however used in the excerpt above shows the right to consult refers to the work being performed by Hecla under this Agreement that was specified in the first sentence, i.e., the location and extent of the laterals, crosscuts, etc. Second, the contract vests Hecla with the exclusive right to operate and manage the project. Had the parties intended Independence to have the right to veto Hecla's operational decisions, surely they would have included language stronger than a mere duty to consult. Instead, the contract states simply that Independence is to be consulted and expected to offer suggestions and advice; the contract does not require Hecla follow any suggestions or advice offered by Independence. We agree with the district court's factual finding that Hecla did not materially breach an express provision of the contract when it did not consult with Independence prior to commencing the project, especially as Hecla does not appear to have been bound by Independence's input.