If A and B enter into a contract by which A agrees to sell personal property to B, and B agrees to pay therefor in instalments, many authorities hold that a material and substantial default on the part of B in making one of such payments operates as such a breach of the entire contract that it discharges A, at his election, from further performance of the covenants which were to be performed on his part after such default.1 In case of substantial default in the payment of one or more instalments, the seller may treat the contract as discharged.2 The seller is not bound to continue performance even if the buyer or the buyer's assignee subsequently tenders the entire amount which is due.3

5 Bloomer v. Bernstein, L. R. 0 C. P. 588.

6 Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Naylor, 9 App. Cas. 434.

7 Hoare v. Rennie, 6 Hurl. & N. 19.

8 Mersey Steel & Iron Co. v. Naylor, 9 App. Cas. 434.

1 England. Honck v. Muller, 7 Q

B. D. 92.

United States. Youghiopheny & O. Coal Co. v. Vewtine, 176 Fed. 972.

Arkansas. Harris Lumber Co. v. Wheeler Lumber Co., 88 Ark. 491, 115 8. W. 168.

California. Veerkamp v. Drying Co., 58 Cal. 229, 41 Am. Rep. 265; California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar, 167 Cal. 274, 139 Pac. 671.

Delaware. Johnson Forge Co. v. Leonard, 3 Penne. (Del) 342, 94 Am. St. Rep. 86, 57 L. R. A. 225, 51 Atl. 305.

Florida. Stokes v. Baars, 18 Fla. 656.

Georgia. Savannah Ice Delivery Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 110 Ga. 142, 35 S. E. 280.

Where this theory is recognized, failure to pay is treated as a discharge, even though the amount which the buyer has failed to pay is a comparatively small amount of the entire purchase price,4 as long as the breach is so material as to prevent substantial performance.5 A default in paying an instalment .which amounted to but little over one per cent. of the entire contract price, has been held to be sufficient to justify the seller in treating the contract as discharged.6

Indiana. Ohio Valley Buggy Co. v. Anderson Forging Co., 163 lnd. 593, 81 N . 574.

Iowa. Quarton v. American Law Book Co, 143 la. 517, 32 L R A. (N. S ) 1, 121 N. W. 1009.

Kansas. Brunswig v. Farmera's Grain, Fuel & Live Stock Co, 100 Kan 2G1, 164 Pac. 154.

Kentucky. Southern Coal & Coke Co v Bowling Green Coal Co, 161 Ky. 477, 170 S. W. 1185.

Maryland. McGrath v. Gegner, 77 Md 331. 39 Am St Rep. 415, 26 Atl. 502; Baltimore v. Schaub, 96 Md. 534, 54 Atl. 106

Massachusetts. National Machine & Tool Co. v. Standard Shoe Machinery Co., 181 Mass. 275, 63 N E 900; Eastern Forge Co. v. Corbin, 182 Mass. 590, 66 N. E. 419; Dudley v. Wye, 230 Mass 350, 119 N. E. 790.

Michigan, W. K Henderson Lumber Co. v. Stilwell, 130 Mich. 124, 89 N. W. 718.

Minnesota. Palmer v. Breen, 34 Minn. 39, 24 N W. 332; Mason v. Edward Thompson Co, 94 Minn. 472, 103 N. W. 507 [citing Myers v. Gross, 59 111. 436; Graf v. Cunningham, 109 N. T. 369, 16 N. E. 551; Wright v. Reus-ens, 133 N. Y 298. 31 N. E. 215].

Missouri. Berthold v. St. Louis Electric Construction Co., 165 Mo. 280,

65 S. W. 784; Strother v. McMullen Lumber Co., 200 Mo. 647, 98 S W. 34.

Mew Jersey. Coryell v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 88 N. J. L. 291, 96 Atl 55

New York. Kokomo Strawboard Co. v. Inman, 134 N. Y. 92, 31 N. E. 248; Raabe v. Squier, 148 N. Y. 81, 42 N. E. 516

Pennsylvania. Shinn v. Bodine, 60 Pa. St 182, 100 Am. Dec. 660; Rugg v. Moore, 110 Pa. St. 236, 1 Atl 320; Easton v. Jones, 103 Pa. St 147, 44 Atl 264.

Tennessee. Ross-Meehan Foundry Co. v. Royer Wheel Co, 113 Tenn. 370, 68 L. R. A. 829, 83 S. W. 167; Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Oliver, 126 Tenn 135, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 416, 130 S W 595.

2 Quarton v. American Law Book Co., 143 la. 517, 32 L. R. A. (N.S) 1, 121 N. W. 1009; Mason v. Edward Thompson Co., 94 Minn. 472, 103 N. W. 507.

3 Quarton v. American Law Book Co, 143 la. 617, 32 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1, 121 N. W. 1009.

4 Dudley v. Wye, 230 Mass. 350, 119 N. E. 790.

5 See ch. LXXX.

6 Dudley v. Wye, 230 Mass. 350, 119 N. E. 790.

Whether default on the part of the buyer in making payments under an instalment contract operates as a discharge of the contract or not, seems to be regarded by some authorities as a question of fact to be determined from the evidence as a whole in each par-ticular case.7