In Speed v. Bailey, 153 Md. 655, 660, 139 A. 534 (1927), Speed agreed to sell to Bailey a plot of land and to build a bungalow on it. Id. at 657. About two months after making the down payment, Bailey complained that Speed "had not fully complied with their contract to build a house according to the written and oral specifications." Id. at 658. Therefore, Bailey argued that he was entitled to rescind the contract and recover his initial payment of $ 2,000. Id. Bailey sued, alleging breach, for which he sought rescission and recovery of his deposit. Speed acknowledged that he "promised to do certain of the things complained of as not having been done," and expressed his "willingness and ability ... to perform all that he admits he promised to perform." Although Bailey prevailed in the trial court, the Court of Appeals reversed. Id. at 656. It stated, id. at 660: "Before partial failure of performance of one party will give the other the right of rescission, the act failed to be performed must go to the root of the contract, or the failure to perform the contract must be in respect to matters which would render the performance of the rest a thing different in substance from that which was contracted for." Notably, the Court recognized that, "when there has been substantial breach of a contract, the other party has a right to rescind the contract or to refuse to perform it and sue for damages." Id. at 661. The Speed Court "reached the conclusion that the rule of substantial compliance is a complete defense to the action as made out by the declaration...." Id. at 662.