The House considered the options available to a party faced with an anticipatory repudiation of a contract.
Held: Affirmation or election requires an unequivocal choice between two inconsistent causes of action.
Lord Ackner said: ‘When A wrongfully repudiates his contractual obligations in anticipation of the time for their performance, he presents the innocent party B with two choices. He may either affirm the contract by treating it as still in force or he may treat it as finally and conclusively discharged. There is no third choice, as a sort of via media to affirm the contract and yet to be absolved from tendering further performance unless and until A gives reasonable notice that he is once again able and willing to perform. Such a choice would negate the contract being kept alive for the benefit of both parties and would deny the party who unsuccessfully sought to rescind the right to take advantage of any supervening circumstance which would justify him in declining to complete.’
Judges:
Lord Ackner
Citations:
[1989] AC 788, [1988] 2 All ER 742, [1988] 3 WLR 200, [1988] 2 Lloyds Rep 199
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Vitol Sa v Norelf Ltd HL 10-Jul-1996
(The Santa Clara) The seller was to deliver propane by a ship set to leave on a certain date. The market was falling. The buyer, when it was clear that the ship would be unable to leave on the day fixed, sent a telex to say that the contract was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.214294