Editing Breach of contract (section)

==Breach of warranty==
{{Main article|Breach of warranty}}
A [[breach of duty in English law|breach]] of a warranty of a contract creates a right to damages for the loss suffered, which was caused by the breach.  These "minor" breaches do not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract. The innocent party cannot sue the party in default for [[specific performance]]: only [[damages]]. [[Injunctions]] (specific performance is a type of injunction) to restrain further breach of a warranty are likely to be refused on the basis that (1) injunctions are a discretionary remedy, and (2) damages are an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case.

Suppose a homeowner hires a contractor to install new plumbing and insists that the pipes, which will ultimately be hidden behind the walls, must be red. The contractor instead uses blue pipes that function just as well. Although the contractor breached the literal terms of the [[contract]], the homeowner cannot ask a court to order the contractor to replace the blue pipes with red pipes. The homeowner can only recover the amount of his or her actual damages. In this instance, this is the difference in value between red pipe and blue pipe. Since the color of a pipe does not affect its function, the difference in value is zero. Therefore, no damages have been incurred and the homeowner would receive nothing (see ''[[Jacob & Youngs v. Kent]]''.)

However, had the pipe color been specified in the agreement as a ''[[covenant (law)|condition]]'', a breach of that condition may well constitute a "major"—i.e. a repudiatory breach. Simply because a term in a contract is stated by the parties to be a condition does not necessarily make it so. Such statements though are one of the factors taken into account to decide whether it is a condition or warranty of the contract. Other than where the colour of the pipes went to the root of the contract (suppose the pipes were to be used in a room dedicated to artwork related to plumbing, or dedicated to high fashion), it would more than likely be a warranty, not a condition.

The general rule is that [[contractual provisions relating to time|stipulations as to time]] in a contract are not conditions of the contract (there are exceptions, such as in shipping contracts; it depends in part upon the commercial importance of timely delivery in all the circumstances of the case). As such, missing a date for performance stipulated in a contract is usually a breach of warranty. However, when a contract specifies [[time is of the essence]] or otherwise contains an express or implied term that times for performance are critical, stipulations as to time will be ''conditions'' of the contract. Accordingly, if a party fails to meet a meet the time stipulations, it will be a breach of a condition of the contract, entitling the innocent party to terminate.