If the promisee with full knowledge of the facts voluntarily accepts less than full performance of the contract, the promisee thereby waives such breach of contract as a ground of discharge.1 The effect of acceptance as a waiver of promisee's right to invoke a breach of the promisor as a discharge of the contract is especially clear where the promisor tenders a substantial performance of the contract which is accepted by the promisee.2

15 Norton v. Roslyn, 10 Wash. 44, 33 Pac. 878.

16 Dean v. Nichols & Shepard Co., 05 la. 80, 63 N. W. 582.

17 Work v. Welsh, 160 111. 468, 43 N. E. 710.

18 Hemsley v. Hotel Co., 63 N. J. Eq. 804, 52 Atl 1132 [affirming without report, 62 N. J. Eq 164, 50 Atl. 14].

19 Scollard v. Normile, 181 Mass. 412, 63 N. E. 041.

20 Garner v. Fite, 03 Ala. 405, 0 So. 367.

1 California. North American Dredging Co. v. Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co., 178 Cal. 406, 173 Pac 756; Smith v. Mathews Construction Co., 170 Cal 707, 170 Pac. 205.

Delaware. Draper v. Randolph, 4 Har. (Del.) 454.

Illinois. Butterick Publishing Co. v. Whitcomb, 225 111. 605, 8 L. R. A. (N.

S.) 1004, 80 N. E. 247; Bloomington Hotel Co. v. Garthwait, 227 111. 613, 81 N. E. 714.

Iowa. Westervelt v. Huiakamp, 101 la, 106, 70 N. W. 125; Creston Water Works v. Creston, 101 la. 687, 70 N. W. 730; Wells v. Hocking Valley Coal Co., 137 la. 526, 114 N. W. 1076.

Kansas. Capper v. Paper Co., 86 Kan. 355, 121 Pac. 510.

Kentucky. Owensboro City R. Co. v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co. (Ky.), 107 S. W. 244, 32 Ky. L. Rep. 844.

Maine. Adams v. Hill, 16 Me. 215.

Massachusetts. Wiley v. Athol, 150 Mass. 426, 6 L. R. A. 342, 23 N. E. 311; Burke v. Coyne, 188 Mass. 401, 74 N. E. 042 (obiter).

Minnesota. CDea v. Winona, 41 Minn. 424, 43 N. W. 07; Gray v. New Paynesville, 80 Minn. 258, 94 N. W. 721.

Acceptance of defective performance does not amount to waiver if such performance is accepted in reliance upon the promise of the adversary party to perform in accordance with the terms of the contract.3 Waiver of defective performance is sometimes spoken of as though it gave no right to recover on the contract itself, for the contract price, but as though it imposed a liability to pay what the performance was reasonably worth.4