Well in my opinion I do not think that she is obligated to sell to Norvel because he wasn’t the first she asked. I believe that she was on first come first she will sell to. I do not believe they had a contract stating that she could only sell to Norvel and had to wait on him to come up with the money. Since Norvel had the money right then she sold the books to him and was happy. I believe she had something to do and needed the money so she asked someone else as a backup plan. I do not think that she breached a valid contract with Antonio. I believe that since she asked him the day before she should’ve gave him time to come up with the money. She didn’t give him time true because she sold the books the same day she asked him did he want to buy the books. She should’ve waited until the next day at least. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party’s performance.
If the party does not fulfill his contractual promise, or has given information to the other party that he will not perform his duty as mentioned in the contract or if by his action and conduct he seems to be unable to perform the contract, he is said to breach the contract. In a “minor” breach (a partial breach or immaterial breach or where there has been substantial performance), the non-breaching party cannot sue for specific performance, and can only sue for actual damages. A material breach is any failure to perform that permits the other party to the contract to either compel performance, or collect damages because of the breach. In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant: (a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected; (b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately compensated for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived; (c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture; (d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances; (e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing.
A fundamental breach (or repudiatory breach) is anticipatory breach a breach so fundamental that it permits the aggrieved party to terminate performance of the contract. In addition that party is entitled to sue for damages. A breach by anticipatory repudiation (or simply) is an unequivocal indication that the party will not perform when performance is due, or a situation in which future non-performance is inevitable. An anticipatory breach gives the non-breaching party the option to treat such a breach as immediate, and, if repudiatory, to terminate the contract and sue for damages (without waiting for the breach to actually take place). So in this case there were no mutual contract written up that said she was only to sell the books to Antonio so Carrie did not under no circumstances breach a contract.
American Law Institute, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241 (1981)