In a number of cases it is held that a mere default in payment of an instalment, even though material, if not coupled with facts showing an intent on the part of the party in default to renounce his liability under the contract, does not operate as a discharge of the adversary party.1 Under what is possibly a modification of this theory, the buyer is not allowed to treat the contract as discharged so that he may recover his loss or profits upon deliveries which he has withheld,2 even though he may be allowed to treat such default as a discharge for the purpose of enabling him to refuse to deliver further instalments. Under this theory, a default in payment which is due to a mistake,3 such as misinterpretatiou of the meaning of the contract,4 such default is held not to justify the seller in treating the contract as discharged.