Opinion ID: 162593
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retraction

Text: 39 Even if the voice mail message had been definite enough to act as a repudiation, the undisputed facts show Novell subsequently reaffirmed the Agreements. Utah law provides a repudiating party can retract [its] repudiation unless the aggrieved party has since the repudiation canceled or materially changed [its] position or otherwise indicated that [it] considers the repudiation final. Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-611(1). A party may retract by any method which clearly indicates to the aggrieved party that the repudiating party intends to perform. Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-611(2). 40 After receiving the telephone message, Mr. Thoillier sent Novell a letter stating: I am writing this letter to confirm your termination of the [Original Equipment Manufacturer] Agreement[s]. 5 Novell responded with a letter stating: I must take exception to [a] comment[ ] made in your letter. .... [Y]ou referred to Novell's `termination' of the Lantec agreement[s]. [Those] agreement[s] can only be terminated in writing and with appropriate notice. On appeal, Lantec and Lantec Brazil argue the notion that Novell could not repudiate unless it terminated the contract[s] in writing was simply nonsensical and poorly reasoned. Assuming termination did not need to be in writing, the letter nevertheless shows Novell did not intend to terminate the Agreements. Further showing Novell's commitment to the Agreements, the letter established a meeting between Novell and the Lantec companies on May 4, 1994, in Las Vegas. In closing, the letter reaffirmed, Novell is willing to consider any reasonable proposal with respect to the ... [a]greement[s] to make th[ose] agreement[s] workable for Lantec (e.g., mutual termination of the agreement[s], restructuring of payment terms, reduction of volume commitment, etc.). I think you will find Novell to be very accommodating on this issue. 41 Novell's actions following the reaffirming letter also demonstrate a commitment to the Original Equipment Manufacturer Agreements. In May 1994, the parties met in Las Vegas to discuss the Agreements. The undisputed outcome of the meeting was that [t]he parties did not reach any agreement as to their respective rights and duties under the Lantec [Original Equipment Manufacturer] [A]greement[s], but that the Lantec companies would evaluate their business relationship with Novell. 42 Consequently, we conclude the undisputed material evidence shows Novell successfully retracted any repudiation of the Original Equipment Manufacturer Agreements.