If the conduct of the party who is not in default, in accepting benefits under the contract, is relied upon as waiver of breach thereof, such acceptance can not be regarded as amounting to a waiver unless the party who is not in default has a choice between accepting such benefits and rejecting them; and if, for any reason, he has no practical choice, his acceptance can not of itself be regarded as amounting to a waiver.1 Questions of this sort often arise under building contracts. One upon whose land the building has been erected by another has, in the view of many courts, no fair choice between accepting or rejecting the work done. Unless he takes possession of the property, he is either obliged to abandon his land or to remove or tear down the building erected, often at great expense. Accordingly, it has been held that the mere fact that the owner takes possession of a building erected upon his land is not such acceptance as to waive a breach by the contractor,2 such as the failure of the contractor to produce the architect's certificate of performance which is required by the terms of the contract.3 Such conduct on the part of the property owner is not such waiver of performance on the part of the contractor as to enable the contractor to recover on the contract if he has not performed it, at least substantially.4 If a contract for painting a house is not performed substantially, the fact that the owner makes use of such house after such defective performance does not show a waiver of such breach or an acceptance of such performance.5 The use of a cathedral is not of itself acceptance of performance of a contract for tiling the roof thereof.6 Making use of steps and a walk leading from a door to the street,7 or making use of a boiler placed in a factory to furnish motive power,8 do not of themselves waive breaches of such contracts. If the contractor has deceived the property owner as to the performance of the contract, conduct of the property owner which is induced by such fraud is not a waiver of breach on the part of the contractor;9 and, on the other hand, such fraud on the part of the contractor waives the omission of the property owner to furnish the contractor with a written statement of the defects, as is required by the terms of the contract.10 However, the act of a city in accepting inferior water which is furnished by a water company, has been regarded as a voluntary waiver of the breach by the water company as to the quality of water to be furnished,11 although, for a time at least, the city had no real choice but to accept the water, such as it was.

6 Bradley Currier Co. v. Bernz, 55 N. J. Eq. 10, 35 Atl. 832; Yahr v. School District, 1)9 Wis. 281, 74 N. W. 779.

7 Hattin v. Chase, 88 Me. 237, 33 Atl

989.

8 Building contract. Jacksonville & Atlantic Ry. v. Woodworth, 26 Fla. 368, 8 So. 177.

Mining contract. Murray v. Heinze, 17 Mont. 353, 42 Pac. 1057; 43 Pac. 714.

9 Van Vleet v. Hayes, 56 Ark. 128, 19 S. W. 427.

See, however, Clark v. West, 193 N. Y. 349, 86 N. E. 1.

1 Alabama. Catanzano v. Jackson, - Ala. -, 73 So. 510.

California. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 141 Cal. 30, 74

Pac. 357.

Idaho. Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Ida. 551, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 872, 99 Pac. 98.

Illinois. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 111. 605, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1004, 80 N. E. 247.

Iowa. Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106.

Maryland. Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L R. A. (N.S.) 489, 69 Atl. 417.

Massachusetts. Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Mass. 584, 59 N. E. 455.

Michigan. Hanley v. Walker, 79 Mich. 607, 8 L. R. A. 207, 45 N. W. 57.

Minnesota. Jordan v. Van Duzee, 139 Mmn. 103, 165 N. W. 877.

Mississippi. Robinson v. De Long, 118 Miss. 280, 79 So. 95.

New York. Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 173, 72 Am. Dec. 442.

North Dakota. International Harvester Co. v. Thomas, - N. D. -, 176 N. W. 523.

Oklahoma. Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okla. 32, 142 Pac. 1036.

Washington. Taylor v. Finch Investment Co., 65 Wash. 435, 118 Pac. 330.

Wisconsin. Manthey v. Stock, 133 Wis. 107, 113 N. W. 443; Rhein V. Burns, 162 Wis. 309, 166 N. W. 138.

2 Alabama. Catanzano v. Jackson,

- Ala. -, 73 So. 610.

California. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 141 Cal 30, 74 Pac. 357.

Idaho. Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Ida. 551, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 872, 99 Pac. 98.

Iowa. Brent v. Head, 138 la. 46, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1100.

Maryland. Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 489, 69 Atl 417.

Mississippi. Robinson v. De Long, 118 Miss. 280, 79 So. 95.

New York. Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 173, 72 Am. Dec. 442.

Oklahoma. Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okla. 32, 142 Pac. 1036.

Washington. Taylor v. Finch Investment Co., 65 Wash. 435, 118 Pac

330.

Wisconsin. Manthey v. Stock, 133 Wis. 107, 113 N. W. 443.

3 Gillis v. Cobe, 177 Mass. 584, 59 N. E. 455; Hanley v. Walker, 79 Mich. 607, 8 L. R. A. 207, 45 N. W. 57.

4 Alabama. Catanzano v. Jackson,

- Ala. -, 73 So. 510.

Arkansas. Fitzgerald v. La Porte, 64 Ark. 34, 40 S. W. 261.

California. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angeles Traction Co., 141 Cal. 30, 74 Pac. 357.

Idaho. Steltz v. Armory Co., 15 Ida.

551, 20 L. R. A. (N.S.) 872, 99 Pac. 98.

Iowa. Brent v. Head, 138 la. 146, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 801, 115 N. W. 1106.

Maryland. Pope v. King, 108 Md. 37, 16 L. R. A. (N.S.) 489, 69 Atl 417.

Michigan. Hanley v. Walker, 79 Mich. 607, 8 L. R. A. 207, 45 N. W. 57.

Minnesota. Elliott v. Caldwell, 43 Minn. 357, 9 L. R. A. 52, 45 N. W. 845.

Mississippi Robinson v. De Long, 118 Mies. 280, 79 So. 95.

Missouri. Haynes v. Church, 88 Mo. 285, 57 Am. Rep. 413.

Montana. Franklin v. Schultz, 23 Mont. 165, 57 Pac. 1037.

New Hampshire. Fuller v. Brown, 67 N. H. 188, 34 Atl 463.

Hew Jersey. Feeney v. Bardsley, 66 N. J. L. 239, 49 Atl 443.

Hew York. Smith v. Brady, 17 N. Y. 173, 72 Am. Dec. 442.

North Dakota. Anderson v. Todd, 8 N. D. 158, 77 N. W. 599.

Ohio. Bender v. Buehrer, 8 Ohio C. C. 244, 4 Ohio C. D. 507.

Oklahoma. Wiebener v. Peoples, 44 Okla. 32, 142 Pac. 1036.

Washington. Taylor v. Finch Investment Co., 65 Wash. 435, 118 Pac. 330.

Wisconsin. Manthey v. Stock, 133 Wis. 107, 113 N. W. 443; Rhein v. Burns, 162 Wis. 309, 156 N. W. 138.