by refusing to submit to the voters the bond-authorization measures that, if approved, would require the Authority to purchase the Facilities. The construction of the Agreements is the subject of another lawsuit; nonetheless, under the Authority’s construction of the Agreements, there has been no breach of the Agreements and the Authority is not required to purchase the Facilities. Under the Developers’ petition, the Agreements are still in effect. The petition shows that rather than rescind the Agreements based on an alleged material breach by the Authority, the Developers have treated the Agreements as still in effect by continuing to demand performance under the Agreements and suing to enforce the Agreements. See Hanks v. GAB Bus. Servs., Inc., 644 S.W.2d 707, 708 (Tex.1982) (<HOLDING>); Gupta v. Eastern Idaho Tumor Inst., Inc., 140
holding that nonbreaching party must decide whether to rescind the contract or seek to enforce it when the material breach occurred rather than waiting until after trial and before judgment to decide and stating that nonbreaching party waived its right to rescind the contract based on the other partys material breach by 1 treating the contract as still in effect following the material breach and 2 by filing suit to enforce the contract holding that an uncured material breach does not discharge the nonbreaching party unless the material failure to perform cannot be cured holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that as a matter of law nonbreaching party was bound by the contract despite other partys material breach because nonbreaching party continued to demand performance under the contract following the material breach