Under common law, does substantial performance suffice?

• A. Exact performance is required
• B. Substantial performance is all that is required
• C. Minor breach suffices
• D. No performance is required

Answer: (B)

Under common law, exact performance isn’t required. The test is whether the promisor has substantially performed the contract—performed in good faith, and in a way that fulfills the essential purpose of the agreement. If the performance is substantially complete with only minor defects, the contract remains enforceable, and the nonbreaching party must accept the performance and pay the contract price, though the breaching party may owe damages to cure the defects or reflect the shortfall. If the breach is material, the nonbreaching party may suspend performance and treat the contract as breached.

So the best choice reflects that substantial performance suffices to keep the contract intact and trigger payment (subject to deductions for defects). This differs from exact performance being required, and it also explains why a minor defect doesn’t excuse nonperformance or void the contract; only a material breach would.