Reciprocal Performance and Delay in Contractual Obligations

A party obligated under a contract to provide funds for a specific purpose, failing to do so, was sued for breach, with the lower court finding the non-performance justified by the other party's prior unexcused delay in delivering required goods, which prejudiced the fund provider's ability to meet their obligation on time. The high court upheld this decision, reasoning that the defense of non-performance is applicable when the party seeking enforcement of the contract has not fulfilled its own reciprocal obligations first, or has caused delays that prevented the counterparty from performing, thereby excusing the latter's subsequent failure to perform its obligations.