The doctrine of repudiatory breach is largely founded upon considerations of convenience and the opportunities which it affords for mitigating loss. It applies even where the obligation to be performed at a future date is a contingent obligation.
Where a repudiatory breach takes place, in order to terminate the contract, the innocent party must clearly and unequivocally accept the repudiation. If he does not do so, he will run the risk of being in breach himself were he not to perform his side of the bargain and thereby allow the original wrongdoer to ‘turn the tables’ on him.
Cockburn CJ said: ‘But in that case he keeps the contract alive for the benefit of the other party as well as his own; he remains subject to all his own obligations and liabilities under it, and enables the other party not only to complete the contract . . but also to take advantage of any supervening circumstance which would justify him in declining to complete it.’
Judges:
Cockburn CJ
Citations:
(1872) LR 7 Ex 111, 41 LJEx 78
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd HL 14-Feb-1980
Wimpey agreed to buy land from Woodar for a sum of andpound;850,000 of which andpound;150,000 was to be paid to Transworld. A month later Wimpey sent a letter purporting to rescind the contract and Woodar sued for damages including the . .
Cited – Lidl UK Gmbh v Hertford Foods Ltd and Another CA 20-Jun-2001
The respondent had contracted to supply tinned corned beef to the appellant, but had become unable to fulfil the orders because of industrial action in Brazil. The appellant had purchased supplies elsewhere and set off the cost of that against the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.538237
