Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite Zancanaro v. Cross, 339 P.2d 746.
- Sierra Verde v. McLaren Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Sierra Verde v. McLaren
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-400 (1959) (“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him; the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance.”).
- Canon v. Retail Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
-
Canon v. Retail
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“One of the remedies available at common law upon a material breach of contract is the right to cease performance and recover the profits which would have been made had the entire contract been performed.”); accord Murphy Farrell Dev., LLLP, v. Sourant, ¶ 33 (App. 2012).
- Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Chandler v. Roosevelt
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach” is entitled only to “damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him[.]”
- Rwi Construction v. Skyz LLC Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
-
Rwi Construction v. Skyz LLC
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
See, (“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him; the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance”).
- Vintage Speedsters v. Vintage Motorcar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
-
Vintage Speedsters v. Vintage Motorcar
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
C.f. Zancanaro v. 6 (“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him.”).
- Thermolife v. Musclepharm Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Thermolife v. Musclepharm
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
“A material breach by one party excuses performance by the other party to the contract.” RAJI (Civil) Contract 9 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241)
- Arik v. Rgo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
-
Arik v. Rgo
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
is not clear, and no other evidence corroborated this claim.” She then concluded that Arik had “failed to prove damages by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶18 In contrast, Judge Martin concluded that Arik’s duty to pay rent was entirely excused for as long as RGO was in breach
- Horst v. Horst Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Horst v. Horst
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶13 “Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him; the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance.” 5 HORST v. HORST Decision of the Court (1959) (citation omitted).
- Zaki v. Capstone Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
Zaki v. Capstone
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
See Murphy Farrell Dev., ¶ 33 (App. 2012) (“[A]n uncured material breach of contract relieves the non-breaching party from the duty to perform and can discharge that party from the contract.”); (“Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him; the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance.
- E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- E&M Services v. A&N Services Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- North v. Ubiquity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- North v. Ubiquity Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
- Woensdregt v. Handyman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Woensdregt v. Handyman
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶21 “Ordinarily the victim of a minor or partial breach must continue his own performance, while collecting damages for whatever loss the minor breach has caused him; the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance.” (citation omitted).
- Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Fisher v. Rondo Pools Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
- Spencer v. Asher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
Spencer v. Asher
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(explaining that a victim of a minor or partial breach must continue to perform, but that the victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance).
- M2 Real Solutions v. Perry Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
M2 Real Solutions v. Perry
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
("[T]he victim of a material .
- D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
D/aq Corp v. Intravest 2851
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Although a reasonable time for performance of a contract may generally be implied, the same principle does not apply here because our legislature has placed strict requirements on real estate professionals who seek to recover commissions, Young, 230 Ariz. at 436, ¶ 13.
- Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Zumar v. Caymus 418 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- Meritage v. Bingham Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
Meritage v. Bingham
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
erally include compliance with applicable building codes and other legal design requirements as an implied term.”); Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C., 198 Ariz. at 17 ¶ 34, 6 P.3d at 322 (“For example, when a builder contracted with a plumbing company to install plumbing fixtures in fifty new houses, the contract contained an implicit promise that the fifty new houses would be built.”); (“An implied promise arising out of the expressed provisions of the contract is as much a part of the contract as a writ
- A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District 311 P.3d 1062 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
-
A. Miner Contracting, Inc. v. Toho-Tolani County Improvement District
311 P.3d 1062
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
394, 400, (one party’s breach of a material provision in a contract excuses the other party’s performance).
- Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles 310 P.3d 9 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
-
Marisol Metzler v. Bci Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles
310 P.3d 9
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
by modifying the amount of the judgment.”
- Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant 272 P.3d 355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-
Murphy Farrell Development, LLLP v. Sourant
272 P.3d 355
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
(holding that victim of a minor or partial breach must continue own performance but victim of a material or total breach is excused from further performance); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 242, emt.
- County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- County of La Paz v. Yakima Compost Co. 233 P.3d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
- Malad, Inc. v. Miller 199 P.3d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Malad, Inc. v. Miller
199 P.3d 623
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
We found, however, that “[w]ith regard to options contracts, courts generally hold that a reasonable time period will be judicially implied where none is specified in the agreement.” Id.
- Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
-
Airfreight Express, Ltd. v. Evergreen Air Center, Inc.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
(“When time for performance is material to a contract and one party fails to perform by the contract deadline date, the other party may treat the contract as ended.”); (“One of the remedies available at common law upon a material breach of contract is the right to cease performance and recover the profits which would have been made had the entire contract been performed.”).
- Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
- Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C. v. Cutter Aviation, Inc. 6 P.3d 315 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000