{"id":26904,"date":"2022-09-05T03:28:18","date_gmt":"2022-09-05T03:28:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/amjur\/contracts-sect-623.html"},"modified":"2022-08-25T11:47:57","modified_gmt":"2022-08-25T11:47:57","slug":"contracts-sect-623","status":"publish","type":"amjur","link":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/amjur\/contracts-sect-623.html","title":{"rendered":"Am Jur 2d – Contracts \u00a7 623"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

VI. Performance or Breach, E. Waiver of Strict or Full Performance, 1. Overview, \u00a7 623 – Right to waive strict or full performance<\/h2>\n

Strict and full performance of a contract by one party may be waived by the other party,[1<\/a>] in which case there is, to the extent of the waiver, no right to damages for the failure to perform strictly or fully.[2<\/a>] This is in accord with the general principle that either party to a contract may waive any of the provisions made for his or her benefit.[3<\/a>] Moreover, if the parties mutually adopt a mode of performing their contract differing from its strict terms, or, during the course of performance, they mutually relax those terms, neither party may claim that a breach occurred because the contract was not literally fulfilled,[4<\/a>] and there may be a mutual estoppel, by waiver, as to the effect of a default.[5<\/a>]<\/p>\n

A waiver of the right to enforce one provision of a contract does not automatically waive the right to enforce others;[6<\/a>] a court will conclude that the right to enforce another provision was waived only where the party intended that consequence.[7<\/a>] Furthermore, a provision in a contract, stating that the waiver of any of the rights granted in the contract does not constitute a permanent waiver, precludes a waiver from resulting in the loss of contract rights with regard to subsequent performances.[8<\/a>]<\/p>\n

When a party to a contract offers, by word or action, a waiver of certain duties under the contract, other parties who change their position as a result of the waiver may enforce the waiver.[9<\/a>]<\/p>\n

\n

All case links go to Westlaw and require login.<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n

1<\/a> \u00a0 Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Industries, Inc., 90 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir. 1996) (applying New York law)<\/a> <\/span>; Bratton v. Roadway Package System, Inc., 77 F.3d 168 (7th Cir. 1996) (applying Pennsylvania law)<\/a> <\/span>; American Dairy Queen Corp. v. Brown-Port Co., 621 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1980)<\/a> <\/span>; Saverslak v. Davis-Cleaver Produce Co., 606 F.2d 208 (7th Cir. 1979)<\/a> <\/span>; Beverly Bank v. Alsip Bank, 106 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 62 Ill. Dec. 572, 436 N.E.2d 598 (1st Dist. 1982)<\/a> <\/span>; White River Conservancy Dist. v. Commonwealth Engineers, Inc., 575 N.E.2d 1011, 16 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)<\/a> <\/span>; Johnson v. E. V. Cox Const. Co., 1980 OK CIV APP 30, 620 P.2d 917 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1980)<\/a> <\/span>; Hart v. Hoisting and Portable Engineers, 253 Or. 158, 451 P.2d 859 (1969)<\/a> <\/span>; First Mortg. Co. of Pennsylvania v. Carter, 306 Pa. Super. 498, 452 A.2d 835 (1982)<\/a> <\/span>; Seismic & Digital Concepts, Inc. v. Digital Resources Corp., 590 S.W.2d 718 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1979)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

2<\/a> \u00a0 Clear Creek Oil & Gas Co. v. Brunk, 160 Ark. 574, 255 S.W. 7 (1923)<\/a> <\/span>; Zinn v. Ex-Cell-O Corp., 148 Cal. App. 2d 56, 306 P.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1957)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span> \u00a0As to a waiver of total breach, see \u00a7 680<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

3<\/a> \u00a0 Lerman v. Fruit Processors, 191 F.2d 349 (D.C. Cir. 1951)<\/a> <\/span>; Knight v. Kitchin, 237 A.D. 506, 261 N.Y.S. 809 (4th Dep’t 1933)<\/a> <\/span>; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1994)<\/a> <\/span> (may unilaterally waive); Godfrey Co. v. Crawford, 23 Wis. 2d 44, 126 N.W.2d 495 (1964)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

4<\/a> \u00a0 Schuler v. Community First Nat. Bank, 999 P.2d 1303 (Wyo. 2000)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

5<\/a> \u00a0 Imperator Realty Co. v. Tull, 228 N.Y. 447, 127 N.E. 263 (1920)<\/a> <\/span>; San Antonio Real Estate Bldg. & Loan Ass’n v. Stewart, 94 Tex. 441, 61 S.W. 386 (1901)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

6<\/a> \u00a0 Alderman v. Davidson, 326 Or. 508, 954 P.2d 779 (1998)<\/a> <\/span>; Bluebonnet Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. Grayridge Apartment Homes, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 904 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1995)<\/a> <\/span>, writ denied, (Mar. 7, 1996).
<\/span><\/p>\n

7<\/a> \u00a0 Alderman v. Davidson, 326 Or. 508, 954 P.2d 779 (1998)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

8<\/a> \u00a0 Hinds v. Titan Wheel Intern., Inc., 45 Fed. Appx. 490 (6th Cir. 2002)<\/a> <\/span>.
<\/span><\/p>\n

9<\/a> \u00a0 CosmetiCredit, L.L.C. v. World Fin. Network Natl. Bank, 2014-Ohio-5301, 24 N.E.3d 762<\/a> <\/span> (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. Franklin County 2014).
<\/span><\/p>\n

Read this complete Am Jur 2d section on Westlaw<\/a><\/b><\/div>\n","protected":false},"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-26904","amjur","type-amjur","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/amjur\/26904","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/amjur"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/amjur"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reference.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}