Breach of Contract - What Survives for the Breaching Party

[Arazu Toth]

My question involves business law in the state of: Arizona

I have done quite a bit of study relative to contractual law yet I'm still missing something critically important. I have a circumstance where somebody has breached a fairly large and complex contract and the breach is intentional, obvious, documented, and the court will not let them dismiss the case for breach (i.e this is good - the court agrees they've breached). However the problem is the party is hiding behind other clauses within the contract which are directly tied to their breach; clauses which protect them. And they planned this!

Isn't there a basic premise of contractual law that if somebody intentionally breaches a contract they cannot use other clauses within the contract (i.e. pick and choose - in this case, maliciously); especially if they refuse to cure the breach (i.e. take it through litigation)?

I'm familiar with the premise of destroying the value of the contract, etc. (which they have done - for me - and is part of my damages) but I'm looking for a way to actively prove by breaching the contract, they gave up their rights to claiming the other provisions are intact and can protect them, especially since their breaching acts were directly prohibited by Clause A, but they are hiding behind Clause B stating it protects them from some of their intentional Clause A violations. Note I have clean hands and have not breached the contract.

I am aware of the "weight" of contractual clauses, but what I need here is an absolute. It makes sense to me if a party intentionally breaches an agreement, they can make no claim to its benefit when the non-breaching party has lost the benefit, especially as they have destroyed the value... but the key is this must come before judgement (i.e. to support a MPI) because I must establish they cannot use the contractual clauses for a contract they have breached on multiple counts as a defense because they lost their claim to the "benefit of the bargain" through their own breach.

Any references to solid reading materials (or links or personal knowledge or experience) which can help answer this question would be appreciated.

[Mr. Knowitall]

The contract is the contract. If the party claiming breach agreed to terms that limit his remedies in the event of a breach, then that's what he agreed to when he entered into the contract. He can have his lawyer review the actual contract language and evidence and advise him; we have access to neither and can thus only remind you of the general rule.

[jk]

I am aware of the "weight" of contractual clauses, but what I need here is an absolute.

the only absolute you are going to get is when the judge renders a decision regarding the action. Up to then, nothing is absolute.

Your statements are ambiguous and rambling. Beyond that, as Mr. K stated, without reading the contract, it is impossible to really offer much. I will say this though in a very general observation:

if clause B excuses some action the other party took that clause A addresses, then there is no breach because clause B excuses it. It makes no sense to have contradicting clauses such as that but I didn't write the contract.