purchase of the Facilities. • The Authority scheduled another bond authorization election in September 2004. However, the Authority did not include any item authorizing the bonds that would have required to purchase the Facilities. Upon learning of this omission, the Developers lodged a protest with the Authority, pointing to the language of the Agreements an cts alleged in the Developers’ petition affirmatively negate the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction by showing that the Developers consented to any alleged taking by the Authority. See Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d at 598-99; Steele Co., 236 S.W.2d at 869; Hightower, 134 S.W.2d at 407. The Developers argue that the Authority has breached the A .W.3d 747, 757-58 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). In the Agreements, the Developers consent to
holding that an uncured material breach does not discharge the nonbreaching party unless the material failure to perform cannot be cured holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of 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 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