Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Breach of a condition of a contract is known as a repudiatory breach. Again, a repudiatory breach entitles the innocent party at common law to (1) terminate the contract, and (2) claim damages. No other type of breach except a repudiatory breach is sufficiently serious to permit the innocent party to terminate the contract for breach.
Anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach is a concept in the law of contracts which describes words or conduct by a contracting party that evinces an intention not to perform or not to be bound by provisions of the agreement that require performance in the future.
It is important to dissipate a fertile source of confusion and to make clear that although the vendor is sometimes referred to [where accepting a repudiatory breach] as "rescinding" the contract, this so-called "rescission" is quite different from rescission Ab initio, such as may arise, for example, in cases of mistake, fraud or lack of ...
Whereas breach of condition is a serious breach that "denies the plaintiff the main benefit of the contract", [2] fundamental breach was supposed to be even worse, with the result that any exclusion clause limiting the defendant's liability would automatically become void and ineffective. Also, whereas breach of condition gives the plaintiff ...
Under the English sale of goods principles, a condition is a term whose breach entitles the injured party to repudiate the contract, [1] but a breach of warranty shall give rise only to damages. [2] In this case, Diplock LJ proposed that some terms could lead either to the right to terminate a contract as a remedy, or to the mere entitlement to ...
Norelf sold the cargo at a loss, and then claimed damages ($950,000) from Vitol for breach of contract. The arbitrator held that Vitol's telex was an anticipatory breach of contract, but Norelf's failure to take further steps to perform the contract was sufficient communication to Vitol that they had accepted the repudiation. Vitol's appeal was ...
Leggatt J held that there was a duty to be honest, which is part of good faith, and that ITC had made a repudiatory breach of contract.. 123. Three main reasons have been given for what Professor McKendrick has called the "traditional English hostility" towards a doctrine of good faith: see McKendrick, Contract Law (9th Ed) pp.221-2.
The court declared that the victim of a breach of contract could lawfully repudiate only if the "breach had denied the plaintiff of the main benefit of the contract". Here, even though the vessel's unseaworthiness (through insufficient and incompetent crew) might seem important, its effect was only minor.