Sackett v. Spindler 1) Facts a) The Plaintiff, Sheldon Sackett (Plaintiff), entered into a contract to buy stock from the Defendant, Paul Spindler (Defendant). The contract stipulated that the Plaintiff was to make three payments due on specified dates. The Plaintiff made the first payment on time and the second payment a few days after it was due. He rendered a check for the third payment prior to its due date, but this check was drawn on insufficient funds. The Plaintiff informed the Defendant that he would be able to pay the balance by September 22. The Defendant notified the Plaintiff that if he did not receive the funds by that date, he would not consider completing the sale and he would assess damages for the Plaintiff’s breach of contract. Plaintiff failed to make the payment on September 22 and the Defendant extended the due date until September 29. Again, the Plaintiff failed to make the payment on time. On October 4, the Plaintiff sent a telegram to the Defendant stating that he was now “ready, eager and willing” to complete the transaction. On October 5, the Defendant wrote a letter to the Plaintiff stating that he was unwilling to complete the transaction due to the Plaintiff’s delay in performing the contract. 2) History a) Trial court held that since Sackett could complete the contract and did not, it was a breach and ruled in favor of Spindler b) Sackett appeals 3) Issues a) Was Sacketts duty to perform discharged by Spindler i) Depending on whether Sacketts’ breach was total or partial will decide if Spindler’s discharge of the contract was unlawful repudiation of the contract ii) Whether a breach of contract is total or partial depends upon its materiality (1) Six factors considered, Pp. 824 iii) The court held that Spindler was justified in terminating the contract on October 5 iv) The failure of Sackett could be characterized as gorrs negligence of willful conduct v) Neverthereless, the repudiation could have been seen as retracted when Spindler’s attorney offered Sackett the stock again in cash. Sackett again rejected. 4) Judgment: Affirmed