1452:
Limited FZC (2016), a clause within the contract between the disputing parties stated that "failure ... to observe any of the terms herein and to remedy the same where it is capable of being remedied within the period specified in the notice given by the aggrieved party to the party in default, calling for remedy, being a period not less than twenty (20) days" would constitute grounds for termination of the contract. The period allowed for such a remedy may be referred to as a "cure period". A right to make use of a cure period may not be available where the innocent party chooses to accept a repudiatory breach and therefore exercise its common law rather than its contractual rights.
1261:, a breach of that condition may well constitute a "major"—i.e. a repudiatory breach. Simply because a term in a contract is stated by the parties to be a condition does not necessarily make it so. Such statements though are one of the factors taken into account to decide whether it is a condition or warranty of the contract. Other than where the colour of the pipes went to the root of the contract (suppose the pipes were to be used in a room dedicated to artwork related to plumbing, or dedicated to high fashion), it would more than likely be a warranty, not a condition.
1121:
terms and to ensure compliance notwithstanding that the other party may, on the face of it, have committed a clear and repudiatory breach. It is only when the defaulting party is told that a repudiatory breach has been "accepted" that the contract is terminated. If the defaulting party is not told the repudiatory breach has been accepted, the contract continues in force. An innocent party is not compelled to exercise its right to terminate, and accept a repudiatory breach. Otherwise, the contract continues in force.
1421:
allowing the agreement to continue. Financial difficulties experienced by
Celtech meant that they missed three payments out of 174 due over the 15 year life of the contract. These represented 8.5% of the total contract sum and were therefore not trivial or minimal, but Celtech were making attempts to pay and therefore not in repudiatory breach. Celtech were, however, in material breach of the contract and the contractual right to terminate could therefore be exercised by Dalkia.
1514:. In most cases of breach, a party to the contract simply fails to perform one or more terms. In those cases, the breaching party should have already considered the cost to perform those terms and thus "keeps" that cost when it does not perform. That party should not be entitled to keep those savings. However, in the pipe example, the contractor never considered the cost of tearing down a house to fix the pipes and so to expect it to pay damages of that nature is unreasonable.
1580:) 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 immediately and sue for damages or to wait for the time of performance. If the party required to perform does not do so when it is required by the contract, the innocent party can terminate then.
1246:, the homeowner cannot ask a court to order the contractor to replace the blue pipes with red pipes. The homeowner can only recover the amount of his or her actual damages. In this instance, this is the difference in value between red pipe and blue pipe. Since the color of a pipe does not affect its function, the difference in value is zero. Therefore, no damages have been incurred and the homeowner would receive nothing (see
144:
36:
1174:
willingness in this context does not mean a desire to perform despite an inability to do so. To say "I would like to but I cannot" negatives intent just as much as "I will not". Contracting parties must perform contracts in strict accordance with their terms: what was agreed in the first instance when the contract was formed. To do otherwise is therefore a breach of contract.
1321:. These alternative wordings have no fixed meaning in law but are interpreted within the context of the contract that they are used. For that reason, the meaning of the different terms varies from case to case. Possible interpretations of their meaning include "repudiatory breach", and "serious breach, but not as serious as a repudiatory breach".
1584:
even though A has until May 1 to perform. However, a unique feature of anticipatory breach is that if an aggrieved party chooses not to accept a repudiation occurring before the time set for performance, the contract continues on foot, but also there will be no right to damages unless an actual breach occurs.
1583:
For example, A contracts with B on
January 1 to sell 500 quintals of wheat and to deliver it on May 1. Subsequently, on April 15, A writes to B and says that he will not deliver the wheat. B may immediately consider the breach to have occurred and file a suit for damages for the scheduled performance
1387:
v United Gas
Company Ltd. (1998), where Colman J considered wording relating to "a material breach of any of obligations", allowing termination of the contract if remedy of such breach had not been commenced within seven days. The judge ruled that recognition that a material breach might be remedied
1368:
has been held to mean "a breach of contract which is more than trivial, but need not be repudiatory" and confirmed as meaning "a breach which is substantial. The breach must be a serious matter, rather than a matter of little consequence." A breach of contract will likely constitute a material breach
1173:
with the terms of the contract also shows an intention not to perform the contract. Whether such conduct is so severe so as to amount to a renunciatory breached depends upon whether the threatened difference in performance is repudiatory. An intention to perform connotes a willingness to perform, but
889:
The first is actual failure to perform the contract as and when specified constitutes the first and most obvious type of breach. A contract lays down what must be done, what cannot be done, and when it must be done. If what was prescribed has not been done within the stipulated or reasonable period,
1120:
To terminate a contract for repudiatory breach, the innocent party must tell the defaulting party. Many commercial contracts include clauses that set out a process whereby notice must be given and in what form. Consequently, if there is a written contract, care should be taken to check the contract
1268:
in a contract are not conditions of the contract (there are exceptions, such as in shipping contracts; it depends in part upon the commercial importance of timely delivery in all the circumstances of the case). As such, missing a date for performance stipulated in a contract is usually a breach of
1471:
of contract is no longer the test for a serious breach of contract to justify termination. The test is that set out for repudiatory breach, above. The concept of fundamental breach as a free standing legal concept no longer has any legal force but is now simply another possible term of a contract
1029:
Any breach of contract (warranty, condition or innominate term) gives rise to a right in the hands of the innocent party to recover their damage suffered which caused by the breach of contract by the defaulting party. Damages in the UK are the only remedy available for breach of a warranty. Those
1486:
if it satisfies one test known as the test of essentiality. The test of essentiality requires that the promise (term) was of such importance to the promisee that he or she would not have entered into the contract without the assurance of strict or substantial performance of the promise, and that
1206:
for the performance of contractual obligations). However, the reason may be highly relevant to what such breach would lead the reasonable observer to conclude about the defaulting party's intentions in relation to future performance and therefore to the issue of renunciation. Often, the question
874:
or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or
1490:
If the contractor in the above example had been instructed to use copper pipes but instead used iron pipes that would not last as long as the copper pipes would have lasted, the homeowner can recover the cost of actually correcting the breach by taking out the iron pipes and replacing them with
1451:
A party in breach of contract may have the right to remedy their breach, for example if the breach itself is remediable and a provision for remedy or a time period for exercising such as right is included within the contract. In the case of
Vinergy International (PVT) Ltd v Richmond Mercantile
1344:
case noted that "the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions... hold the landlord's right to terminate is not unlimited. We believe a court's decision to permit termination must be tempered by notions of equity and common sense. We thus hold a forfeiture for a trivial or immaterial breach of a
1420:
Utilities
Services plc v Celtech International (2006) noted that assessing "materiality" involved looking at the actual breaches, their consequences, explanation for the breaches, their context within the agreement, the consequences of holding the agreement determined and the consequences of
1502:. The law does not favor tearing down or destroying something that is valuable (almost anything with value is "valuable"). In this case, significant destruction of the house would be required to completely replace the pipes and so the law is hesitant to enforce damages of that nature. See
1829:
Cases such as
Braithwaite v Foreign Hardwood Company (1905) 2KB 543, British and Beningtons Ltd v North Western Cachar Tea Co (1923) AC 48, and Cooper, Ewing & Co Ltd v Hamel & Horley Ltd (1923) 13 Ll L Rep 590, discussed in England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division),
1388:
distinguished the concept from a repudiatory breach, and there was no commercial sense in a clause restricting the common law rights of the innocent party, in relation to a repudiatory breach, and therefore "material breach" must refer to a form of breach which is not repudiatory.
1241:
Suppose a homeowner hires a contractor to install new plumbing and insists that the pipes, which will ultimately be hidden behind the walls, must be red. The contractor instead uses blue pipes that function just as well. Although the contractor breached the literal terms of the
896:
As noted by Seddon et al, these forms of breach of contract overlap, and an actual failure to perform may manifest an unwillingness or inability to perform. This is not always the case: an individual may fail to perform a contractual obligation even when willing or able.
1376:
In respect to the EPC Agreements, material breach is defined as "shall mean a breach by either Party of any of its obligations under this
Agreement which has or is likely to have a Material Adverse Effect on the Project and which such Party shall have failed to cure".
1293:. 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.
875:
communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages have to be paid to the aggrieved party by the party breaching the contract.
1494:
There are exceptions. Legal scholars and courts have been known to find that the owner of a house whose pipes are not the specified grade or quality (a typical hypothetical example) cannot recover the cost of replacing the pipes for the following reasons:
1225:
of a warranty of a contract creates a right to damages for the loss suffered, which was caused by the breach. These "minor" breaches do not entitle the innocent party to terminate the contract. The innocent party cannot sue the party in default for
1238:(specific performance is a type of injunction) to restrain further breach of a warranty are likely to be refused on the basis that (1) injunctions are a discretionary remedy, and (2) damages are an adequate remedy in the circumstances of the case.
1133:
intended to be received as consideration for performance of its future obligations under the contract. Different forms of words are used by courts to express this central concept. The most prominent is whether the breach goes to
405:
1165:
Conduct is renunciatory if it shows an intention to commit a repudiatory breach. The conduct would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the party does not intend to perform its future obligations when they fall due.
1398:
Whether a breach of an agreement is "material" must depend upon all the facts of the particular case, including the terms and duration of the agreement in question, the nature of the breach, and the consequences of the
1352:(2000), the UK Court of Appeal decided that a clause which provided that the contract could be terminated "if the contractor commits a breach of any of its obligations under the contract" should not be given its
1049:
are given to "punish or make an example of a wrongdoer who has acted willfully, maliciously or fraudulently". Punitive damages are awarded only in extreme cases and usually along with compensatory damages.
923:
The general law has three categories of breaches of contract, which measure of the seriousness of the breach. In the absence of a contractual or statutory provision, any breach of contract is categorized:
1188:
If the defaulting party does not perform when the time for performance arrives, the contract may be terminated. However, if the defaulting party performs, the right to terminate is lost forever.
942:
There is no "internal rating system" within each of these categories (such as "a serious breach of warranty"). Any breach of contract is of a breach of warranty, condition or innominate term.
410:
915:
breaches. The defaulting party renunciates the contract in advance of when it is required to performs its obligations. Renunciatory breach is more commonly known as "anticipatory breach."
2030:
1202:
The reason for a defaulting party committing an actual breach is generally irrelevant to whether it constitutes a breach, or whether the breach is a repudiation (this is an incident of
993:
1522:
in the house. For example, if the house is worth $ 125,000 with copper and $ 120,000 with iron pipes, the homeowner would be able to collect the $ 5,000 difference and nothing more.
1277:
of the contract. Accordingly, if a party fails to meet a meet the time stipulations, it will be a breach of a condition of the contract, entitling the innocent party to terminate.
1207:
whether conduct is a renunciation falls to be judged by reference to the defaulting party's intention, which is objectively evinced by past breaches and other words and conduct.
1045:
are rewarded in an attempt to make place the innocent party in the position that would have been occupied "but for" the breach. Those damages are most often awarded as payments.
1550:(d) the likelihood that the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will cure his failure, taking account of all the circumstances including any reasonable assurances;
624:
673:
798:
365:
1117:
An innocent party is therefore entitled to elect to terminate a contract only for breach of a condition of the contract, repudiatory breach or renunciatory breach.
1195:
Nevertheless, conduct may be a renunciation because it would lead the reasonable observer to conclude that there was an intention not to perform in the future, and
1392:
1058:
Damages for distress or disappointment are not generally allowed by the courts, but cases where the award of such damages has been considered and agreed include
904:
a contract can be breached, not how serious the breach is. A judge will make a decision on whether a contract was breached based on the claims of both parties.
1844:
1518:
Most homeowners would be unable to collect damages that compensate them for replacing the pipes but would be awarded damages that compensate them for the
783:
3 Historically restricted in common law jurisdictions but generally accepted elsewhere; availability varies between contemporary common law jurisdictions
1504:
1087:, 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
1430:
Crosstown Music
Company v Rive Droite Music Ltd (2009), also making the point that a "material" breach was more significant than a "trivial" breach.
1553:(e) the extent to which the behavior of the party failing to perform or to offer to perform comports with standards of good faith and fair dealing.
878:
If a contract is rescinded, parties are legally allowed to undo the work unless doing so would directly charge the other party at that exact time.
1265:
945:
In terms of priority of classification of these terms, a term of a contract is an innominate term unless it is clear that it is intended to be a
1373:
of the contract. A variety of tests may be applied to terms of contracts to decide whether a term is a warranty or a condition of the contract.
946:
893:
A further form of breach of contract is conduct indicating an unwillingness or inability to perform an obligation arising from that contract.
843:
1191:
Conduct comprising a breach for performance of contractual obligations that have fallen due may be insufficient to be a repudiation. However:
1487:
ought to have been apparent to the promisor. This is an objective test of the parties' intention at the time of formation of the contract.
1356:: it was considered "contrary to business common sense" to allow any breach at all, however trivial, to create grounds for termination.
53:
2042:
Photo
Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd AC 827, per Lord Wilberforce at p. 843; Lord Reid in Suisse Atlantique 1 AC 361 at 406
1780:
2183:
1526:
1001:
119:
1016:
2072:
1149:, provided that that inability to perform on the part of the innocent party is not itself attributable to the repudiatory breach;
429:
393:
100:
911:
breach of contract. The two other types are breaches as to the future performance of the contract and are technically known as
1630:
72:
1533:
In determining whether a failure to render or to offer performance is material, the following circumstances are significant:
1349:
422:
57:
2068:
1273:
or otherwise contains an express or implied term that times for performance are critical, stipulations as to time will be
1222:
79:
1674:
688:
278:
1181:
choose to accept the breach at once and to terminate the contract, without waiting for the due date of performance, or
1030:
damages can come in different forms such as an award of monetary damages, liquidation damages, specific performances,
173:
1409:) it seems to me that they must have had in mind, at least to some extent, the commercial consequences of the breach.
86:
968:
836:
787:
708:
434:
1805:
1248:
1031:
683:
642:
554:
1729:
2128:
2104:
1886:
1593:
1576:
1141:
Sometimes the innocent party may be deprived of its entitlement to damages for repudiatory breach of contract:
1059:
490:
203:
68:
1405:
when judging what the parties meant when they referred to a breach having to be "material" and "remediable" (
2132:
2108:
812:
663:
472:
322:
46:
1138:. Those forms of words are simply different ways of expressing the "substantially the whole benefit" test.
2084:
1270:
388:
348:
273:
249:
231:
2017:, EWHC 525 (Comm) (15 March 2016), accessed 2 January 2022, paragraph 11 (clause 17 within the contract)
2206:
1819:"Federal Commerce & Navigation Co Ltd v Molena Alpha Inc (The Nanfri) AC 757 per Lord Wilberforce".
1337:
829:
816:
805:
678:
668:
612:
236:
1537:(a) the extent to which the injured party will be deprived of the benefit which he reasonably expected;
1700:"Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd v Spar Shipping AS (Rev 1) [2016] EWCA Civ 982"
1111:
and the consequences will be such as to entitle the innocent party to treat the contract as at an end.
1431:
1333:
is one that does not meet the standard for designation as a material, serious or substantial breach.
1227:
1042:
696:
533:
383:
262:
168:
163:
1529:
lists the following criteria to determine whether a specific failure constitutes a material breach:
1564:
1547:(c) the extent to which the party failing to perform or to offer to perform will suffer forfeiture;
452:
343:
208:
188:
1618:
1603:
1467:
1461:
1216:
985:
738:
701:
543:
515:
374:
359:
353:
327:
93:
2064:
2179:
1930:
Mid Essex
Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group UK and Ireland Ltd (t/a Medirest) (2013)
871:
595:
584:
305:
254:
245:
226:
183:
1755:
1093:(aka anticipatory breach), where the other party makes clear to the innocent party that it:
1063:
1046:
618:
505:
500:
462:
457:
300:
283:
2124:
2100:
2014:
1985:
1353:
863:
621:(also implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing or duty to negotiate in good faith)
510:
240:
217:
2149:(Fourth ed.). Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. p. 440.
1954:
1929:
1699:
1644:
2001:
1831:
1925:
1483:
1424:
1384:
1341:
1257:
815:, and Canadian jurisprudence in both Québec and the common law provinces pertaining to
756:
647:
578:
563:
311:
158:
972:
2200:
547:
295:
268:
198:
1613:
1008:
751:
746:
733:
524:
178:
143:
2031:
Termination for repudiatory breach: do contractual notification provisions apply?
1235:
1035:
867:
589:
495:
400:
317:
35:
17:
2175:
791:
774:
193:
1845:
A clearer picture of entitlement to damages flowing from repudiatory breach?
1198:
the past and threatened future breaches taken together would be repudiatory.
742:
417:
1305:
to describe a type of breach of contract. These contractual terms include
1081:
of the contract, no matter how trivial the breach of the condition may be;
1598:
1380:
Other UK cases which relate to the concept of a material breach include:
1243:
950:
572:
467:
290:
135:
2002:
Crosstown Music Company 1, Llc v Rive Droite Music Ltd & Ors (2009)
1953:
Quoted by Clarke J in England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court),
1608:
1541:
1231:
538:
1875:"Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v T.D. Bailey, Son & Co 3 All ER 60".
1417:
2033:, Allen & Overy, published 17 May 2016, accessed 2 January 2022
1832:
Acre 1127 Ltd. (In Liquidation) v De Montfort Fine Art Ltd. (2011)
860:
2015:
Vinergy International (PVT) Ltd v Richmond Mercantile Limited FZC
1986:
Gallaher International Ltd v Tlais Enterprises Ltd (Rev 1) (2008)
1255:
However, had the pipe color been specified in the agreement as a
1955:
Dalkia Utilities Services Plc v Celtech International Ltd (2006)
1169:
Showing an intention to perform a contract in a manner which is
728:
1177:
In the event of a renunciatory breach, the innocent party may:
1472:
that needs to be construed like any other term of a contract.
718:
29:
1781:"Remedies for Breach of Contract — Judicial Education Center"
1540:(b) the extent to which the injured party can be adequately
1129:
Conduct is repudiatory if it deprives the innocent party of
2145:
Paterson, Jeannie; Robertson, Andrew; Duke, Arlen (2012).
1864:"Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation v Citati 2 QB 401".
1544:
for the part of that benefit of which he will be deprived;
1041:
Damages are classified as being compensatory or punitive.
1928:, in England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division),
1369:
if the term of the contract which has been breached is a
886:
There exists two elementary forms of breach of contract.
1988:, EWHC 804 (Comm) (18 April 2008), accessed 15 June 2021
1730:"What Are the Remedies Available for a Contract Breach?"
1479:
is usually read as a reference to a repudiatory breach.
994:
J & B Caldwell Ltd v Logan House Retirement Home Ltd
808:
both in Québec and in the country's common law provinces
2004:, EWHC 600 (Ch) (25 March 2009), accessed 15 June 2021
1914:
Terminating a Commercial Contract for Material Breach
1834:
EWCA Civ 87 (9 February 2011), accessed 13 June 2021
1756:"Breaches of Contract - The Basics :: Litigant"
934:
breach of an innominate term, otherwise known as an
811:
7 Specific to civil law jurisdictions, the American
60:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
2000:England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division),
1414:Phoenix Media Limited v Cobweb Information (2000)
1184:wait for the time for performance of the contract.
1102:is going to commit a breach of an innominate term,
625:Contract A and Contract B in Canadian contract law
2013:England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court),
1984:England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court),
2087:, Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241 (1981)
1889:, 163 Ariz. 438 (1990), accessed 25 January 2021
1675:"Breach of Contract — Judicial Education Center"
1391:Glolite Ltd. v Jasper Conran Ltd. (1998), where
1531:
1403:
1396:
1096:is not going to perform the contract at all, or
780:2 Specific to civil and mixed law jurisdictions
1099:is going to commit a breach of a condition, or
1269:warranty. However, when a contract specifies
837:
8:
2025:
2023:
1569:Renunciatory breach (usually referred to as
1074:A right to terminate a contract arises for:
1851:, published May 2011, accessed 13 June 2021
1505:Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co.
817:contractual and pre-contractual negotiation
2097:Progressive Mailing House v Tabali Pty Ltd
1345:commercial lease should not be enforced."
844:
830:
131:
1908:
1906:
1904:
1859:
1857:
120:Learn how and when to remove this message
2061:Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park
1949:
1947:
1654:
1301:Contracts often use wording other than
919:Classifications of breaches of contract
764:
716:
655:
634:
604:
562:
523:
480:
444:
373:
335:
216:
150:
134:
1661:
1147:irremediably disabled from performance
1131:substantially the whole of the benefit
613:Duty of honest contractual performance
1996:
1994:
890:there has been a breach of contract.
882:What constitutes a breach of contract
801:of International Commercial Contracts
7:
1348:In Rice (t/a The Garden Guardian) v
900:These classifications describe only
58:adding citations to reliable sources
1887:Foundation Dev. Corp. v. Loehmann's
790:and other civil codes based on the
27:Type of civil wrong in contract law
1957:, EWHC 63 (Comm) (27 January 2006)
1916:, Crown Office Chambers, June 2007
1154:a settled intention not to perform
1017:Woods v N J Ellingham & Co Ltd
25:
1527:Restatement (Second) of Contracts
1002:Soccer Nelson Inc v Soccer NZ Inc
615:(or doctrine of abuse of rights)
430:Enforcement of foreign judgments
394:Hague Choice of Court Convention
142:
34:
45:needs additional citations for
1932:, EWCA Civ 200, paragraph 126.
1350:Great Yarmouth Borough Council
1340:decision in a 1990 commercial
423:Singapore Mediation Convention
1:
1482:A term may be a condition in
1070:Right to terminate for breach
797:5 Explicitly rejected by the
564:Quasi-contractual obligations
2174:(10th ed.). Australia:
1734:Brown & Charbonneau, LLP
1289:of a contract is known as a
1025:Rights to damages for breach
1806:"Breach of Contract Claims"
1427:v Tlias Enterprises (2008)
969:C&P Haulage v Middleton
907:The first type above is an
2223:
2147:Principles of Contract Law
1885:Supreme Court of Arizona,
1562:
1525:In the United States, the
1459:
1425:Gallaher International Ltd
1249:Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
1214:
1152:if the innocent party has
1054:Damages for disappointment
435:Hague Judgments Convention
2065:[1938] NSWStRp 37
1843:Pease, C. and Riach, C.,
1719:Grand China, paragraph 98
1645:Resources in your library
1264:The general rule is that
1145:if the innocent party is
786:4 Specific to the German
1594:Anticipatory repudiation
1577:anticipatory repudiation
1447:Right to remedy a breach
1136:the root of the contract
1060:Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd
491:Anticipatory repudiation
241:unequal bargaining power
2051:Suisse Atlantique, Ibid
1966:Unreported, 16 May 2000
1266:stipulations as to time
931:breach of condition; or
813:Uniform Commercial Code
788:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch
473:Third-party beneficiary
445:Rights of third parties
323:Accord and satisfaction
2131:385 at pp 416, 441-2,
2085:American Law Institute
1556:
1411:
1401:
1271:time is of the essence
544:Liquidated, stipulated
389:Forum selection clause
274:Frustration of purpose
2170:Seddon, Nick (2012).
2125:[1989] HCA 51
2101:[1985] HCA 14
2075:(NSW, Australia).
1338:Arizona Supreme Court
1281:Breach of a condition
1161:Renunciatory breaches
1079:breach of a condition
806:Canadian contract law
174:Abstraction principle
1442:cases in his speech.
1228:specific performance
1125:Repudiatory breaches
1043:Compensatory damages
635:Related areas of law
534:Specific performance
384:Choice of law clause
349:Contract of adhesion
263:Culpa in contrahendo
169:Meeting of the minds
164:Offer and acceptance
69:"Breach of contract"
54:improve this article
2163:Academic literature
1760:www.litigant.com.au
1571:anticipatory breach
1565:Anticipatory breach
1559:Anticipatory breach
1091:renunciatory breach
928:breach of warranty;
799:UNIDROIT Principles
573:Promissory estoppel
453:Privity of contract
406:New York Convention
366:UNIDROIT Principles
209:Collateral contract
204:Implication-in-fact
189:Invitation to treat
1898:All ER (D) 902, CA
1736:. 5 September 2019
1636:Breach of contract
1619:Lost volume seller
1604:Fundamental breach
1477:fundamental breach
1468:Fundamental breach
1462:Fundamental breach
1456:Fundamental breach
1385:National Power plc
1315:substantial breach
1311:fundamental breach
1303:repudiatory breach
1291:repudiatory breach
1217:Breach of warranty
1211:Breach of warranty
1085:repudiatory breach
986:Clasper v Lawrence
857:Breach of contract
619:Duty of good faith
516:Fundamental breach
482:Breach of contract
411:UNCITRAL Model Law
375:Dispute resolution
360:Contra proferentem
354:Integration clause
328:Exculpatory clause
1631:Library resources
872:binding agreement
854:
853:
697:England and Wales
605:Duties of parties
596:Negotiorum gestio
585:Unjust enrichment
306:Statute of frauds
255:Unconscionability
227:Misrepresentation
184:Mirror image rule
130:
129:
122:
104:
16:(Redirected from
2214:
2189:
2151:
2150:
2142:
2136:
2118:
2112:
2094:
2088:
2082:
2076:
2058:
2052:
2049:
2043:
2040:
2034:
2027:
2018:
2011:
2005:
1998:
1989:
1982:
1976:
1975:1 Lloyds Rep 599
1973:
1967:
1964:
1958:
1951:
1942:
1939:
1933:
1923:
1917:
1910:
1899:
1896:
1890:
1883:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1866:
1865:
1861:
1852:
1841:
1835:
1827:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1810:
1809:
1802:
1796:
1795:
1793:
1791:
1777:
1771:
1770:
1768:
1766:
1752:
1746:
1745:
1743:
1741:
1726:
1720:
1717:
1711:
1710:
1708:
1706:
1696:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1685:
1671:
1665:
1659:
1434:referred to the
1204:strict liability
1064:Farley v Skinner
1047:Punitive damages
846:
839:
832:
674:China (mainland)
643:Conflict of laws
506:Efficient breach
501:Exclusion clause
301:Illusory promise
284:Impracticability
146:
132:
125:
118:
114:
111:
105:
103:
62:
38:
30:
21:
2222:
2221:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2197:
2196:
2194:
2192:
2186:
2172:Law of Contract
2169:
2160:
2155:
2154:
2144:
2143:
2139:
2119:
2115:
2095:
2091:
2083:
2079:
2059:
2055:
2050:
2046:
2041:
2037:
2029:Upadhyaya, N.,
2028:
2021:
2012:
2008:
1999:
1992:
1983:
1979:
1974:
1970:
1965:
1961:
1952:
1945:
1940:
1936:
1924:
1920:
1911:
1902:
1897:
1893:
1884:
1880:
1874:
1873:
1869:
1863:
1862:
1855:
1842:
1838:
1828:
1824:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1789:
1787:
1779:
1778:
1774:
1764:
1762:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1739:
1737:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1718:
1714:
1704:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1693:
1683:
1681:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1660:
1656:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1627:
1590:
1567:
1561:
1464:
1458:
1449:
1366:material breach
1362:
1360:Material breach
1354:literal meaning
1327:
1307:material breach
1299:
1297:Types of breach
1283:
1219:
1213:
1163:
1127:
1072:
1056:
1027:
981:
964:
959:
921:
884:
864:cause of action
850:
821:
693:United Kingdom
656:By jurisdiction
126:
115:
109:
106:
63:
61:
51:
39:
28:
23:
22:
18:Material breach
15:
12:
11:
5:
2220:
2218:
2210:
2209:
2199:
2198:
2191:
2190:
2184:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2159:
2156:
2153:
2152:
2137:
2113:
2089:
2077:
2053:
2044:
2035:
2019:
2006:
1990:
1977:
1968:
1959:
1943:
1934:
1918:
1900:
1891:
1878:
1867:
1853:
1849:Legal Briefing
1836:
1822:
1811:
1797:
1772:
1747:
1721:
1712:
1691:
1666:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1647:
1641:
1640:
1629:
1628:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1616:
1611:
1606:
1601:
1596:
1589:
1586:
1563:Main article:
1560:
1557:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1538:
1516:
1515:
1509:
1500:Economic waste
1491:copper pipes.
1484:Australian law
1460:Main article:
1457:
1454:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1428:
1422:
1415:
1412:
1389:
1361:
1358:
1331:trivial breach
1326:
1325:Trivial breach
1323:
1319:serious breach
1298:
1295:
1282:
1279:
1215:Main article:
1212:
1209:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1150:
1126:
1123:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1097:
1088:
1082:
1071:
1068:
1055:
1052:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1013:
1005:
998:
990:
980:
977:
976:
975:
963:
960:
958:
955:
940:
939:
932:
929:
920:
917:
883:
880:
866:and a type of
852:
851:
849:
848:
841:
834:
826:
823:
822:
820:
819:
809:
804:6 Specific to
802:
795:
784:
781:
778:
773:1 Specific to
770:
767:
766:
762:
761:
760:
759:
754:
749:
736:
731:
723:
722:
714:
713:
712:
711:
706:
705:
704:
699:
691:
686:
681:
676:
671:
666:
658:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
648:Commercial law
645:
637:
636:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
616:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
592:
587:
582:
579:Quantum meruit
575:
567:
566:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
551:
550:
536:
528:
527:
521:
520:
519:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
493:
485:
484:
478:
477:
476:
475:
470:
465:
460:
455:
447:
446:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
427:
426:
425:
415:
414:
413:
408:
398:
397:
396:
386:
378:
377:
371:
370:
369:
368:
363:
356:
351:
346:
344:Parol evidence
338:
337:
336:Interpretation
333:
332:
331:
330:
325:
320:
315:
312:Non est factum
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
287:
286:
281:
276:
266:
259:
258:
257:
243:
234:
229:
221:
220:
214:
213:
212:
211:
206:
201:
196:
191:
186:
181:
176:
171:
166:
161:
153:
152:
148:
147:
139:
138:
128:
127:
42:
40:
33:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2219:
2208:
2205:
2204:
2202:
2195:
2187:
2185:9780409330229
2181:
2177:
2173:
2168:
2167:
2162:
2161:
2157:
2148:
2141:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2127:, (1989) 168
2126:
2122:
2121:Foran v Wight
2117:
2114:
2110:
2107:17 at p. 48,
2106:
2103:, (1985) 157
2102:
2098:
2093:
2090:
2086:
2081:
2078:
2074:
2073:Supreme Court
2070:
2066:
2062:
2057:
2054:
2048:
2045:
2039:
2036:
2032:
2026:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2010:
2007:
2003:
1997:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1981:
1978:
1972:
1969:
1963:
1960:
1956:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1941:All ER(D) 321
1938:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1922:
1919:
1915:
1909:
1907:
1905:
1901:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1882:
1879:
1871:
1868:
1860:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1840:
1837:
1833:
1826:
1823:
1815:
1812:
1807:
1801:
1798:
1786:
1782:
1776:
1773:
1761:
1757:
1751:
1748:
1735:
1731:
1725:
1722:
1716:
1713:
1701:
1695:
1692:
1680:
1676:
1670:
1667:
1663:
1662:Seddon (2012)
1658:
1655:
1646:
1643:
1642:
1637:
1632:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1602:
1600:
1597:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1579:
1578:
1572:
1566:
1558:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1528:
1523:
1521:
1520:loss of value
1513:
1510:
1507:
1506:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1485:
1480:
1478:
1473:
1470:
1469:
1463:
1455:
1453:
1446:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1400:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1372:
1367:
1359:
1357:
1355:
1351:
1346:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1332:
1324:
1322:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1294:
1292:
1288:
1280:
1278:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1253:
1251:
1250:
1245:
1239:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1218:
1210:
1208:
1205:
1197:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1167:
1160:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1132:
1124:
1122:
1118:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1069:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1004:
1003:
999:
996:
995:
991:
988:
987:
983:
982:
978:
974:
971:
970:
966:
965:
961:
956:
954:
952:
948:
943:
937:
933:
930:
927:
926:
925:
918:
916:
914:
910:
905:
903:
898:
894:
891:
887:
881:
879:
876:
873:
870:, in which a
869:
865:
862:
858:
847:
842:
840:
835:
833:
828:
827:
825:
824:
818:
814:
810:
807:
803:
800:
796:
793:
789:
785:
782:
779:
777:jurisdictions
776:
772:
771:
769:
768:
763:
758:
755:
753:
750:
748:
744:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
726:
725:
724:
720:
715:
710:
709:United States
707:
703:
700:
698:
695:
694:
692:
690:
687:
685:
682:
680:
677:
675:
672:
670:
667:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
654:
649:
646:
644:
641:
640:
639:
638:
633:
626:
623:
622:
620:
617:
614:
611:
610:
609:
608:
603:
598:
597:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
580:
576:
574:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
556:
553:
549:
548:penal damages
545:
542:
541:
540:
539:Money damages
537:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
522:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
450:
449:
448:
443:
436:
433:
432:
431:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
409:
407:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
392:
391:
390:
387:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
372:
367:
364:
362:
361:
357:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
334:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
318:Unclean hands
316:
314:
313:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
285:
282:
280:
279:Impossibility
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:Force majeure
267:
265:
264:
260:
256:
253:
252:
251:
250:public policy
247:
244:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
225:
224:
223:
222:
219:
215:
210:
207:
205:
202:
200:
199:Consideration
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
170:
167:
165:
162:
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:
145:
141:
140:
137:
133:
124:
121:
113:
110:December 2009
102:
99:
95:
92:
88:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71: –
70:
66:
65:Find sources:
59:
55:
49:
48:
43:This article
41:
37:
32:
31:
19:
2207:Contract law
2193:
2171:
2158:Bibliography
2146:
2140:
2135:(Australia).
2120:
2116:
2096:
2092:
2080:
2067:, (1938) 38
2060:
2056:
2047:
2038:
2009:
1980:
1971:
1962:
1937:
1921:
1913:
1912:Winser, C.,
1894:
1881:
1870:
1848:
1839:
1825:
1814:
1800:
1788:. Retrieved
1784:
1775:
1763:. Retrieved
1759:
1750:
1738:. Retrieved
1733:
1724:
1715:
1703:. Retrieved
1694:
1682:. Retrieved
1678:
1669:
1657:
1635:
1614:Terms of use
1582:
1574:
1570:
1568:
1532:
1524:
1519:
1517:
1511:
1503:
1499:
1493:
1489:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1466:
1465:
1450:
1439:
1435:
1406:
1404:
1397:
1395:stated that
1379:
1375:
1370:
1365:
1363:
1347:
1342:retail lease
1335:
1330:
1328:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1300:
1290:
1286:
1285:Breach of a
1284:
1274:
1263:
1256:
1254:
1247:
1240:
1220:
1203:
1201:
1190:
1187:
1176:
1171:inconsistent
1170:
1168:
1164:
1153:
1146:
1140:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1119:
1116:
1090:
1084:
1078:
1073:
1057:
1040:
1028:
1015:
1009:Walsh v Kerr
1007:
1000:
992:
984:
967:
944:
941:
936:intermediate
935:
922:
913:renunciatory
912:
908:
906:
901:
899:
895:
892:
888:
885:
877:
856:
855:
752:Criminal law
734:Property law
689:Saudi Arabia
594:
577:
481:
358:
310:
261:
179:Posting rule
136:Contract law
116:
107:
97:
90:
83:
76:
64:
52:Please help
47:verification
44:
2111:(Australia)
1785:jec.unm.edu
1679:jec.unm.edu
1542:compensated
1393:Neuberger J
1236:Injunctions
1062:(1972) and
1036:restitution
979:New Zealand
868:civil wrong
590:Restitution
401:Arbitration
2176:LexisNexis
2133:High Court
2109:High Court
1926:Jackson LJ
1705:7 February
1625:References
1575:breach by
1512:Pricing in
1275:conditions
1032:rescission
1020:1 NZLR 218
1012:1 NZLR 490
989:3 NZLR 231
973:EWCA Civ 5
792:pandectist
775:common law
555:Rescission
463:Delegation
458:Assignment
246:Illegality
194:Firm offer
80:newspapers
1765:23 August
1371:condition
1287:condition
1258:condition
997:2 NZLR 99
947:condition
794:tradition
664:Australia
511:Deviation
418:Mediation
151:Formation
2201:Category
2069:SR (NSW)
1790:10 April
1740:10 April
1684:10 April
1599:Contract
1588:See also
1440:Gallaher
1402:and that
1244:contract
1066:(2001).
957:Case law
951:warranty
757:Evidence
729:Tort law
702:Scotland
525:Remedies
468:Novation
291:Hardship
218:Defences
159:Capacity
1609:Lawsuit
1399:breach.
1232:damages
1230:: only
962:England
747:estates
679:Ireland
296:Set-off
237:Threats
232:Mistake
94:scholar
2182:
1633:about
1436:Dalkia
1432:Mann J
1418:Dalkia
1223:breach
1034:, and
909:actual
745:, and
743:trusts
717:Other
669:Canada
96:
89:
82:
75:
67:
2123:
2099:
2071:632,
2063:
949:or a
938:term.
861:legal
859:is a
765:Notes
739:Wills
721:areas
684:India
546:, or
496:Cover
101:JSTOR
87:books
2180:ISBN
1792:2020
1767:2020
1742:2020
1707:2019
1686:2020
1438:and
248:and
239:and
73:news
2129:CLR
2105:CLR
1573:or
1407:sic
1336:An
1252:.)
902:how
719:law
56:by
2203::
2178:.
2022:^
1993:^
1946:^
1903:^
1856:^
1847:,
1783:.
1758:.
1732:.
1677:.
1475:A
1364:A
1329:A
1317:,
1313:,
1309:,
1234:.
1221:A
1038:.
953:.
741:,
2188:.
1808:.
1794:.
1769:.
1744:.
1709:.
1688:.
1664:.
1508:.
1156:.
845:e
838:t
831:v
123:)
117:(
112:)
108:(
98:·
91:·
84:·
77:·
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
