A dancer signs a contract with a traveling circus to travel and perform as an aerialist for six months. After two weeks she is injured and briefly hospitalized; the circus hires another aerialist. After one more week, she is cleared to return but the circus refuses to honor the remainder. Under contract law, did the dancer's two weeks of non-performance constitute a material breach?

• A. The dancer's failure to perform for two weeks was a material breach.
• B. The circus could terminate for convenience without damages.
• C. The breach excuses the circus from paying wages.
• D. The dancer's failure to perform for two weeks was not a material breach.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that a material breach is a failure that goes to the heart of the contract and defeats the main purpose of the agreement. A temporary lapse in performance due to illness—especially when the period is short and performance can resume—generally isn’t treated as a material breach.

Here, the dancer was injured early in a six-month engagement. The two-week gap was temporary, and the circus could cover those performances with a substitute during that short period. Once the dancer was cleared to return, she could resume performing for the remainder of the contract. The core purpose of the contract—six months of aerial performances—still could be satisfied after the brief interruption, so the interruption doesn’t destroy the contract’s essence. Therefore, the two-week non-performance isn’t a material breach.

Options suggesting an automatic termination for convenience, or that the breach excuses wages for the entire period, misstate how temporary illness interacts with a long-term service contract.