Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 250). Repudiation discharges the other party’s remaining duty to render performance. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 253. To state a claim for anticipatory breach, however, the aggrieved party must treat the repudiation as a total breach, terminate the contract, and file suit. See Haddon Hous. Associates, Ltd. P’ship v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1339 (Fed.Cir. 2013) (citing 13 Williston on Contracts § 39:32 (4th ed.)). The Federal Circuit has recognized at least two scenarios by which a party will be treated as having repudiated a contract. First, repudiation may occur where a party “clearly and expressly” communicates its intention not to perform. Dow Chem. Co. v. United States, 226 F.3d 1334, 1345 (Fed. Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). In addition, where an obligee reasonably 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a creditor could be liable for the misrepresentations in a letter mailed by a collection agency hired to send the letter (B) holding agencys letter to plaintiff repudiated licensing agreement by stating agency would refuse to make payments and that requests for reconsideration would be denied (C) holding that agreement for periodic child support payments is governed by law of contracts and under contract principles payments survive obligors death absent agreement to contrary shown by provisions of contract or surrounding circumstances (D) holding that letter from attorney fraudulently accusing plaintiff of violating defendants exclusive licensing rights was not actionable under the njcfa because letter did not involve a sale of merchandise (E) holding that statements of franchisor that total investment of capital necessary would be about 85000 that agency would turn around within 12 to 18 months that agencys gross profit once business was established would be approximately 300000 and that franchisor would play substantial role in operation of franchise were not fraudulent under michigan law
Output (English): holding that letter from attorney fraudulently accusing plaintiff of violating defendants exclusive licensing rights was not actionable under the njcfa because letter did not involve a sale of merchandise