Ads
related to: consequences of anticipatory breach
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
repudiatory breach, that is an actual breach of an innominate term, where the consequence of the breach is sufficiently serious to give rise to a right to terminate; or; renunciatory breach (aka anticipatory breach), where the other party makes clear to the innocent party that it: is not going to perform the contract at all, or
Hochster v De La Tour [1853] EWHC J72 (QB) is a landmark English contract law case on anticipatory breach of contract. It held that if a contract is repudiated before the date of performance, damages may be claimed immediately.
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 ...
Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts; Foakes v Beer [1] (1884) on part payments of debt (with a notable dissenting opinion by Lord Blackburn) The Hong Kong Fir (1961) on innominate terms, allowing the court remedial flexibility
"Damages" are monetary compensation for loss. In contract [83] and tort, [84] damages will be awarded if the breach of contract (or breach of duty) causes foreseeable loss. By contrast, a fraudulent misrepresenter is liable in the common law tort of deceit for all direct consequences, whether or not the losses were foreseeable. [85]
If the consequences are sufficiently serious so as to deprive the innocent party of "substantially the whole benefit of the contract", it's a repudiatory breach of contract. Breach of an innominate term therefore depends entirely upon the nature of the breach and its foreseeable consequences. For Upjohn LJ in Hong Kong Fir, the question of law was:
A deviation is a departure from the "agreed route" or the "usual route", and it can amount to a serious breach of contract. The consequences of unjustified deviation can be very grave for the carrier, who is thereby prevented from relying upon exclusion clauses within the contract limiting his liability; nor will the carrier be able to rely on ...