Breach

MBE fact patterns rarely ask “was there a breach?” — they ask what the breach lets you do next, so the answer hinges on whether the breach is material (total) or minor, and, for goods, on whether the UCC (Article 2) or common law governs. The classic tell is the builder who finishes a house with the wrong brand of identical-quality pipe (Jacob & Youngs v. Kent) — that is substantial performance, so the owner who refuses to pay is himself in breach and owes the price less damages for the trivial defect. Distinguish a divisible common-law contract from a UCC installment contract: under 2-612, rejecting an installment requires substantial impairment — a narrower test than perfect tender — and the seller may still cure (2-508).

The trap is confusing breach with its remedies. Breach is the wrong; rescission is one elective response that unwinds the deal and demands mutual restoration — you cannot keep the bargain’s benefit and also rescind. Reliance is a damages measure, not a cause of action. Pick the remedy the facts support, not the first one that sounds plausible.