FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 830 times | Saved to 276 briefcases
Roth and Co. v. Taysen, Townsend aid Co. aid Grant and Co. (1895) 73 L. T. R.


Non-acceptance by D of cargo of maize. Contract entered into on May 23. May 29 D repudiates. July 24 P sues. Sept 5 P sells cargo (date when delivery was to be made – performance date). P sells at a loss


How are damages assessed when a contract is repudiated by one party and treated as a breach by the other party?


The repudiation of one party has no significance unless other party acts on it or accepts it. Once that party accepts the repudiation the duty to mitigate arises (the duty to mitigate arises when a breach arises, the repudiation is treated as a breach when accepted).
**In regular contracts the duty to mitigate arises when the contract is breached. In anticipatory contracts the duty to mitigate arises when the contract is treated as breached


When there is a repudiation, which the other party chooses to treat as a breach, the primary rule is that the damages are the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods at the date of the breach.


Recover loss as if maize had been sold on July 24 (when sues)

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.