Cited by

Whether a party has materially breached a contract is a question of fact for the trial court to resolve.

Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 724-25 (1993) (discussing the material breach doctrine).

In ruling in favor of the defendants, the trial court found that: (1) the plaintiff had not satisfied his implied obligation to perform the contracted-for work in a workmanlike manner, see Norton v. Burleaud, 115 N.H. 435, 436 (1975), thereby discharging the defendants’ obligations under the contract, see Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 724-25 (1993); and (2) at the time that the defendants terminated the contract, they paid the plaintiff $500.

A material breach of contract by one party to a contract discharges the duty of performance of the other.

Whether a delay in payments is a material breach is a question for the trier of fact to determine from the facts and circumstances of the case.

In this case, the trial court found that the plaintiff “breached its contract with [the owner], which required that it provide a new roof which does not leak during a New England winter.” Not every breach of duty by one party to a contract discharges the duty of performance of the other.

rial court denied the motion, stating that because the expert “opined that Mr. Boyle would be able to get the variances,” the jury could conclude that “‘but for’ the sewer line, this process would have gone forward and he would have cleared those hurdles.” To establish a claim for lost profits, the plaintiff must prove both the fact of lost profits and the amount with reasonable certainty.

Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 725 (1993); see 14 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 43.5, at 614-25 (4th ed. 2013).

Only a breach of contract that is sufficiently material and important to justify terminating the transaction will excuse a non-breaching party’s obligation to perform under the contract.

Only a breach of contract that is sufficiently material and important to justify terminating the transaction will excuse a non-breaching party’s obligation to perform under the contract.

Whether a breach of contract is material is a question of fact, see Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 725 (1993), and we will uphold the trial court’s findings of fact and rulings of law unless they lack evidentiary support or constitute a clear error of law, see McNeal v. Lebel, 157 N.H. 458, 461 (2008).

“Only a breach that is sufficiently material and important to justify ending the whole transaction is a total breach that discharges the injured party’s duties.” Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 725 (1993).

Relying upon Hydraform Products Corp. v. American Steel & Aluminum Corp., 127 N.H. 187, 197 (1985), and Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 725 (1993), the defendants argue that speculative losses are not recoverable.

“Whether [conduct] is a material breach is a question for the trier of fact to determine from the facts and circumstances of the case.” Fitz v. Coutinho, 136 N.H. 721, 725, 622 A.2d 1220, 1223 (1993).

A de *118 gree of uncertainty is inherent in any projection of future profits, cf. Van Hooijdonk v. Langley, 111 N.H. 32, 34, 274 A.2d 798, 799 (1971); the essential issue is whether the evidence on lost profits provides enough information under the circumstances to permit the fact finder to reach a reasonably certain determination of the amount of gains prevented.