Talk:Anticipatory repudiation

message: The thing I haven't seen explicated anywhere is why anyone would want to do this. Just to be less a jerk by saying, "Yeah, you're going to have to sue me anyway; might as well be now,"? It is a breach of contract, isn't it? The nonbreaching party would still want to sue, wouldn't it? -Dan 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: Hey guys, could you please help me out?  I'm wondering what exactly will constitute an anticipatory breach which gives the innocent party a right to terminate. In particular, I'm wondering what exactly the breaching party must say in order to to do this. 
Is there such thing as an anticipatory breach which does NOT give the innocent party a right to terminate? I would imagine that there is - if I contract with you to build a stadium, with grass of a certain variety, and I express an intention to put grass of a different variety there, It would be absurd if you could terminate the contract.
Bearing that in mind, tehre must surely be some parallel with the condition/warranty/innominate term taxonomy of regular breach. But is it the same as with regular breach?
I ask because whilst things might be clear if we just had conditions and warranties, innominate terms create a particular difficulty. When would the nature of the term, which is the subject of the intention to breach, be evaluated? It seems to me that it is crucial to determine this, because of the serious repercussions in getting it wrong. If the 'innocent' party thinks the other party has committed an anticipatory breach, and purports to accept that breach, terminating the contract, and it later turns out that the purported anticipatory breach was no breach at all, the 'innocent' party will themselves have committed an anticipatory breach!
Arpitt (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes an anticipatory breach, in the UK?

message: The article says that a duty to mitigate arises when you are informed of an anticipatory breach. However, in the UK, does the rule in White and Carter v McGregor not say that the plaintiff has the option to continue with the obligations under the contract, and does not have to mitigate, until he accepts the anticipatory breach or there is an essential breach?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metraij (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duty to mitigate 

message: The intro, "Anticipatory repudiation, also called an anticipatory breach, is a term in the law of contracts that describes a declaration by the promising party to a contract, that he or she does not intend to live up to his or her obligations under the contract." is incorrect.  Anticipatory breach is a form of breach by the guilty party, and anticipatory repudiation is a remedy available to the innocent party.  I propose to give this article a good going over! Arrivisto (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this page should be renamed anticipatory breach. Arrivisto (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial rewrite is needed 

message: "Time of performance, when the trail that occurs after the time of performance". What does this mean? Should "trail" be "trial"? 2A00:23C5:FE0B:700:3086:E31D:D332:3D20 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad grammar / nonsense