Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
This was the case even though the demand for a higher price was made bona fide because the supply price for the car, a Ferrari Testarossa, had increased during the order period. [7] The question arises as to why any party would want to provide notice of anticipatory breach.
The cases discussed are, Coggs v Barnard (1703) on bailment; Pillans v Van Mierop (1765) on the doctrine of consideration; Carter v Boehm (1766) on good faith; Da Costa v Jones (1778) Hochster v De La Tour (1853) on anticipatory breach; Smith v Hughes (1871) on unilateral mistake and the objective approach to interpretation of contracts
Renunciatory breach (usually referred to as anticipatory breach or breach by anticipatory repudiation) is an unequivocal indication that the party will not perform when performance falls due or a situation in which future non-performance is inevitable. An anticipatory breach gives the innocent party the option to terminate the contract ...
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 ...
The fact that the emphasis in the earlier cases was upon the breach by one party to the contract of his contractual undertakings, for this was the commonest circumstance in which the question arose, tended to obscure the fact that it was really the event resulting from the breach which relieved the other party of further performance of his ...
Donald Trump derailed his 2020 election subversion indictments by winning back the White House, but dozens of his allies still face state criminal prosecutions that he, even as president, can’t ...
The 1962 case of Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha had helped to clarify the distinction between breach of "condition" (where both damages and repudiation lie) and breach of "warranty" (whose sole remedy is damages). [1]