Timeline for Does intent affect whether or not repudiation or fundamental breach has occurred?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 6, 2016 at 9:53 | vote | accept | aroth | ||
| Dec 5, 2016 at 22:59 | answer | added | Dale M♦ | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:33 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Yes. A honest mistake in failing to pay can still be a material breach of a contract justifying termination of the contract. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:31 | comment | added | aroth | @ohwilleke - "intent to act or not act doesn't matter, only the intent of the parties regarding what the contract means in the first place" - If I parse that correctly, you mean to say it doesn't matter if the breaching party intended to pay correctly and just made an honest mistake, what matters is that the parties agreed payment would be due, and that payment was not received? | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:28 | comment | added | ohwilleke | Ah. . . . so the contract is not quite as simple as all that. This would explain it. Certainly, non-payment would be a material breach that justifies withholding further performance. Usually, in contracts, intent to act or not act doesn't matter, only the intent of the parties regarding what the contract means in the first place. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:27 | history | edited | aroth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 263 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:23 | comment | added | aroth | @ohwilleke - As for why terminate rather than sue for non-payment (if that's what you're asking?), say the non-breaching party has agreed to deliver some additional accessories to the main item of work upon receipt of payment. It would then be in their interest to terminate performance and sue the breaching party for damages, as then their obligation to deliver those accessories would cease while the amount they can sue for remains unchanged. | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:20 | comment | added | aroth | @ohwilleke - Perhaps nothing, but I'm no expert (which is why I ask). But what I read about termination (and in particular, repudiation) is that a wrongful termination can amount to repudiation, and give the other party a right to terminate. If so, is there a way for the breaching party to end up with a right to terminate? | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:10 | comment | added | ohwilleke | I don't see why terminating the contract would be an issue. The work has been performed, the duty to pay has been breached, and the breaching party could be sued for non-payment. What am I not understanding about this fact pattern? | |
| Dec 5, 2016 at 15:01 | history | edited | aroth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 8 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 12:26 | history | edited | aroth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 10:47 | history | edited | aroth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| Dec 5, 2016 at 10:42 | history | asked | aroth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |