Opinion ID: 1098433
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it error to award murphy $74,000.00?

Text: LeBleu and Coatings argue that Murphy should be precluded from recovering the $74,000.00 principal, plus interest, because the Chancellor, in the Findings of Fact, determined that Murphy had done nothing in furtherance of the contract since the first trial. According to LeBleu and Coatings, Murphy's failure to perform is tantamount to a breach of contract. They claim that since Murphy breached the contract by failing to perform he cannot now bring suit against them for payment of his monthly fee. While LeBleu and Coatings are correct when they argue that the repudiation of one's duty under a contract terminates the duty of the other, they fail to note that they are the ones who repudiated the contract. This Court in Murphy v. LeBleu, found that, [i]n short Murphy committed no breach of contract; thus, the Consulting Agreement was wrongfully breached by LeBleu and Coatings. 511 So.2d at 894-95. We are now in the position that Murphy was properly performing a contract when LeBleu and Coatings wrongfully breached the contract. This Court has repeatedly stated that a party may not defend a breach of contract action on the grounds of non-performance when the defending party has prevented performance by repudiating the contract. See also UHS-Qualicare v. Gulf Coast Community Hospital, Inc., 525 So.2d 746 (Miss. 1987); Bolling v. Red Snapper Sauce Co., 97 Miss. 785, 53 So. 394 (1910); and Old Ladies Home Ass'n v. Hall, 212 Miss. 67, 52 So.2d 650 (1951). 525 So.2d at 756. In Bolling the plaintiff was allowed to recover even though he did not fully comply with the contract because the defendant was the one who caused the breach. 97 Miss. at 786, 53 So. at 395. A party cannot defend a breach of contract action on the ground of non-performance when that same party has prevented performance. The contract, obligated CMI/LeBleu to pay Murphy the sum of $2,000.00 per month for the life of the Grand Gulf painting contract. 511 So.2d at 895. Because LeBleu and Coatings wrongfully breached the Consultant Agreement, they are prevented from withholding payment by claiming that Murphy failed to perform. UHS-Qualicare, 525 So.2d at 756. Murphy was ready to perform but could not perform because he received no directions from LeBleu and Coatings. LeBleu and Coatings knew or should have known realized that the lower court's decision, allowing the termination, could be reversed and the effect of that reversal. The Consulting Agreement is in full force, Murphy should receive $2,000.00 a month in accordance with the provisions of the Consulting Agreement.