This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
Since election is the choice between two inconsistent rights, waiver is a necessary correlative of election, although it does not seem to be limited to cases of election. Since election exists where there are two or more inconsistent rights, and from their nature the party who makes the election can not take both, the election of one of these rights operates as a renunciation or waiver of the other. As applied to problems of breach, in cases in which the party who is not in default has the right of election between treating the breach on the part of the party who is in default as a discharge of the contract, or treating the contract as in full force and effect, the party who is not in default may, if he elects to do so, take the latter alternative and treat the contract as in effect. Such election waives the right of the party who is not in default to treat the contract as discharged by the breach which such party has thus waived.1
8 See Sec. 2664.
9 See Sec. 3040 et seq.
10 Boulder & Beaver Placer Co. v. Maxwell, 24 Colo. 87, 48 Pac. 815.
1 Canada. Sorette v. Development Co., 31 N. S. 427.
United States. District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works, 181 U. S. 453, 45 L. ed. 048; Graham v. United States, 188 Fed. 651; Northwest Auto Co. v. Harmon, 250 Fed. 832; Landes v. Klopstock, 252 Fed. 80; Stennick v. Jones, 252 Fed. 345 [opinion modified, 256 Fed. 354].
Arkansas. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W. v. Davidson, - Ark. -, L. R. A. 1017C, 014, 191 S. W. 061.
California. Witmer Brothers Co. v. Weid, 108 Cal. 560, 41 Pac. 401; Smith v. Mathews Construction Co., 170 Cal. 797, 170 Pac. 205.
Florida. .Roess Lumber Co. v. State Exchange Bank, 68 Fla. 324, L. R. A. 1918E, 207, 67 So. 188.
Georgia. Pitcher v. Lowe, 05 Ga, 423, 22 S. E. 678; McAuliffe v. Vaugh-an, 135 Ga. 852, 33 L. R. A. (N.S.) 255, 70 S. E. 322.
Illinois. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 111. 605, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1004, 80 N. E. 247; Hills v. Mc-Munn, 232 111. 488, 83 N. E. 063.
Iowa. Dahl v. Thompson, 08 la. 509, 67 N. W. 570.
Kentucky. Louisville & Nashville Ry. v. Mason & Hoge Co. (Ky.), 104 S. W. 075, 31 Ky. L. Rep. 1220.
Louisiana. Des Allemands Lumber Co. v. Morgan City Timber Co., 117 La. 1, 41 So. 332.
Massachusetts. Jones v. Brown, 171 Mass. 318, 50 N. E. 648.
Michigan. Robinson v. Lake Shore & Michigan So. Ry., 103 Mich. 607, 61