Mayfair Construction Co. v. Waveland Associates Phase I Limited Partnership

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under Illinois contract law, “it is presumed that all provisions were inserted for a purpose, and conflicting provisions will be reconciled if possible so as to give effect to all of the contract’s provisions”
• holding that refusal to submit disputes to third party designated by the contract was a material breach where the aggrieved party offered testimony that it would not have signed the contract without the dispute resolution provisions, which ensured work would proceed in a timely manner
• stating that “[i]n construing a contract, it is presumed that all provisions were inserted for a purpose, and conflicting provisions will be reconciled if possible so as to give effect to all of the contract’s provisions”
• rejecting a broad interpretation of the phrase ‘any dispute’ because it would “nullify the explicit mandate of the rest of the contract.”
• a material breach of contract includes the failure to perform a “substantial undertaking set forth in [the] contract”
• party’s refusal to submit construction contract disputes to architect for arbitration as per the contract was a material breach where there was an immediate financial impact on the other party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).