In assessing whether there is a material breach, the parties must first and foremost be concerned with the nature and gravity of the breach and its overall impact on the innocent party. In order to terminate a contract for adversarial breach, the innocent party must inform the defaulting party. Many commercial contracts contain clauses that specify a procedure in which and in what form termination is to be carried out. Therefore, in the case of a written contract, care should be taken to verify the terms of the contract and ensure its conformity, even if the other party has committed a clear and negative breach at first sight. Only when the defaulting party is informed that a disputed breach has been “accepted” will the contract be terminated. If the defaulting party is not informed that the disdainful breach has been accepted, the contract remains in force. An innocent party is not obliged to exercise its right of termination and accept a negative violation. If they do not, the treaty will remain in force.  Behaviour is resentful if it shows intent to commit a disdainful violation. The conduct would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the party does not intend to perform its future obligations when they become due.  An action for substantial breach of contract is a civil action and the remedies granted are intended to put the injured party in the situation in which he would find himself without the breach. Remedies in the event of breach of contract are not intended to punish the offending party. What do you have to prove? Whether there is a material violation is a question of fact.
Unless the relationship has completely collapsed, it may be unwise to terminate the contract, as the other party may argue that the alleged termination is in itself a rejection of the contract. The consequences could be a significant claim for damages against the person claiming the offence. There may be other options for action that are less risky for the innocent party, and if they are well managed, it may be possible for the parties to continue working together. However, if the color of the pipe had been specified as a condition in the agreement, a violation of this condition could well constitute a “serious” – that is, repulsive – violation. Just because a condition in a contract is specified as a condition by the parties does not necessarily mean so. However, these statements are one of the factors taken into account in determining whether it is a condition or guarantee of the contract. Outside of where the color of the pipes went to the root of the contract (suppose the pipes should be used in a room dedicated to artwork related to sanitary installations or dedicated to haute couture), this would most likely be a guarantee, not a condition. .