If a contract concerns mixed goods and services, it is necessary for the court to "review the circumstances surrounding the factual circumstances surrounding the negotiation, formation and contemplated performance of the contract to determine whether the contract is predominantly or primarily a contract for the sale of goods or for services." Glover School v. Office and Equipment Co., Inc., Del. Super., 372 A.2d 221, 223 (1970). The party first guilty of material breach of contract cannot complain if the other party subsequently refuses to perform. Hudson v. D.V. Mason Contractors, Inc., Del. Super., 252 A.2d 166, 170 (1969). Mere inconvenience or substantial increase in cost of compliance will not excuse a promisor from the duty to perform his contractual obligation. Ridley Inv. Co. v. Croll, Del. Supr., 192 A.2d 925, 926 (1963). In order to recover damages for any breach of contract, plaintiff must demonstrate substantial compliance with all the provisions of the contract. Emmett Hickman Co. v. Emilio Capano Developer, Inc., Del. Super., 251 A.2d 571, 573 (1969). Damages for breach of contract will be in an amount sufficient to return the party damaged to the position to the position that party would have been in had the breach not occurred. Delaware Limousine Service, Inc. v. Royal Limousine Svc., Inc., Del. Super., C.A. No. 87 C-FE-104, Goldstein, J., 1991 WL 53449 (April 5, 1991)