"Able's breach of the contract was substantial because the letters Able was required to obtain were to validate the legality of each demolition."...

"Able's breach of the contract was substantial because the letters Able was required to obtain were to validate the legality of each demolition."

Wait, wait, wait . . . the point of the letters was to guard against wrongful demolitions. Here, there is nothing to suggest that anybody's home was wrongly demolished. Able tore down homes that needed to be torn down. In light of that, why isn't the failure to obtain the letters in a handful of cases not a minor breach?