Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:38:12.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TWO MODELS FOR DISCHARGE OF A CONTRACT BY REPUDIATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2018

J.W. Carter ,
Wayne Courtney  and
Gregory Tolhurst
Get access

Abstract

This article compares two models of discharge for repudiation. The first – termed the “mirror image model” – has come to the fore only in recent years. It treats the applicable principles as the mirror image of those that govern discharge for failure to perform a contractual term. Under the second model – the “differentiated model” – repudiation is analysed in terms of various criteria that respond to conceptual diversity within the basis for discharge. The two models diverge, at the heart of the repudiation doctrine, when the issue is whether a reasonable person would regard the promisor as having refused to perform the contract. It is argued that the differentiated model is the better model, and also the preferred view of the common law.

Keywords

contractrepudiationrefusal to performprospective breachperformance insecurity
Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 97 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor Emeritus, University of Sydney; General Editor, Journal of Contract Law; Consultant, Herbert Smith Freehills.

**

Associate Professor of Law, National University of Singapore.

***

Executive Director, New South Wales Bar Association; Professor of Law, University of Sydney. The views expressed in this article are my personal views.

References

1 See Peter Lind & Co. Ltd. v Constable Hart & Co. Ltd. [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 248, 253, per Mustill J.

2 Apparently supporting (some form of) the differentiated model are: Andrews, N., Clarke, M., Tettenborn, A. and Virgo, G., Contractual Duties: Performance, Breach, Termination and Remedies, 2nd ed. (London 2017), ch. 6Google Scholar, but cf. paras. 8–001 to 8–025; Andrews, N., Contract Rules (Cambridge 2016)Google Scholar, Articles 137, 141, but cf. Articles 138, 147; Stannard, J.E. and Capper, D., Termination for Breach of Contract (Oxford 2014)Google Scholar, §7.16; Carter, J.W., Carter's Breach of Contract (Hart Edition) (Oxford 2012)Google Scholar, ch. 7; Treitel, G.H., Remedies for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Account (Oxford 1988), 380CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Supporting the mirror image model are: Liu, Qiao, Anticipatory Breach (Oxford 2011)Google Scholar, esp. chs. 3, 4; Burrows, A., A Restatement of the English Law of Contract (Oxford 2016), 110–11Google Scholar; Beale, H. (ed.), Chitty on Contracts, 32nd ed. (London 2015)Google Scholar, paras. 24–018, 24–027.

3 Hochster v De la Tour (1853) 2 E. & B. 678; 118 E.R. 922. See note 34 below.

4 See e.g. Aktieselskabet Pitwood v J.W. Baird & Co. Ltd. (1926) 24 Ll L. Rep. 282, esp. 284–85, per Bankes L.J., 288, per Atkin L.J. (cif contract for sale of goods, seller resiling from agreed point of discharge), discussed in Andrews et al., Contractual Duties, paras. 6–071 to 6–074.

5 See also note 118 below (material increase to the risk of non-performance). Cf. Aktieselskabet Pitwood (1926) 24 Ll L. Rep. 282, 284–85, per Bankes L.J. The seller's refusal in that case was, in any event, material.

6 Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. v Molena Alpha Inc. [1979] A.C. 757. See below, text at fn. 48.

7 Universal Cargo Carriers Corp. v Citati [1957] 2 Q.B. 401.

8 British and Beningtons Ltd. v North Western Cachar Tea Co. Ltd. [1923] A.C. 48, 72, per Lord Sumner (with whom Lords Buckmaster, Wrenbury and Carson agreed).

9 Geden Operations Ltd. v Dry Bulk Handy Holdings Inc. (The M/V Bulk Uruguay) [2014] EWHC 885 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 66, at [15].

10 Traces can be found in Thorpe v Fasey [1949] 1 Ch. 649, 661, per Wynn-Parry J. Cf. Universal Cargo Carriers Corp. [1957] 2 Q.B. 401, 438, per Devlin J.

11 Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd. v Telford Homes (Creekside) Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377.

12 Urban 1 (Blonk Street) Ltd. v Ayres [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756.

13 Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. (The Spar Capella) [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447.

14 Final Act of the United Nations Conference on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, United Nations, Doc A/CONF 97/18, 10 April 1980, Annex I (“CISG”). See further note 113 below. CISG has not been adopted in the UK.

15 Hongkong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 69 (“Hongkong Fir”).

16 Other criteria are also invoked, on the basis that they are interchangeable. References to the “Hongkong Fir criterion” should be read accordingly.

17 Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd. [2013] 4 All E.R. 377, at [63], per Lewison L.J. (with whom Longmore and Tomlinson L.JJ. agreed).

18 See e.g. Parbulk II A/S v Heritage Maritime Ltd. (The Mahakam) [2011] EWHC 2917 (Comm); [2012] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 87, at [31], per Eder J. (breach of condition an “actual repudiation”).

19 Aktieselskabet Pitwood (1926) 24 Ll L. Rep. 282, 288, per Atkin L.J.

20 See Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty. Ltd. [2007] HCA 61; (2007) 233 C.L.R. 115.

21 See note 60 below.

22 However, the statement of the mirror image model in The M/V Bulk Uruguay [2014] EWHC 885 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 66, at [15] omits factual inability.

23 Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44].

24 The Spar Capella [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm); [2015] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 407, at [212].

25 See note 4 above (requirement of materiality).

26 See note 104 below.

27 See note 59 below.

28 See e.g. M'Clure v Ripley (1850) 5 Ex. 140, 144; 155 E.R. 60, 62, per Patteson J. (for the Exchequer Chamber).

29 See e.g. Jones v Barkley (1781) 2 Doug. 684, 695; 99 E.R. 434, 440, per Buller J.

30 See (respectively) Short v Stone (1846) 8 Q.B. 358; 115 E.R. 911; Ford v Tiley (1827) 6 B. & C. 325; 108 E.R. 472; Bowdell v Parsons (1808) 10 East 359; 103 E.R. 811.

31 See e.g. Short (1846) 8 Q.B. 358, 369–70; 115 E.R. 911, 915, per Patteson J. (if A promised to marry B but married C, proof that C was living when the action was brought was unnecessary).

32 For a contrary view, see The M/V Bulk Uruguay [2014] EWHC 885 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 66, at [21].

33 See e.g. Philpotts v Evans (1839) 5 M. & W. 475, 477; 151 E.R. 200, 202.

34 See e.g. Williston, S., “Repudiation of Contracts” (1901) 14 Harv.L.Rev. 317, 421CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sir Mustill, M., “Anticipatory Breach”, Butterworth Lectures 1989–90 (London 1990)Google Scholar; Mitchell, P., “Hochster v De La Tour (1853)” in Mitchell, C. and Mitchell, P. (eds.), Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract (Oxford 2008), 135 Google Scholar.

35 Hochster (1853) 2 E. & B. 678, 690; 118 E.R. 922, 926. Cf. Carter, J.W., “Discharge as the Basis for Termination for Breach of Contract” (2012) 128 L.Q.R. 283 Google Scholar, at 295–97.

36 The ability to withdraw a verbal repudiation was recognised. See Hochster (1853) 2 E. & B. 678, 693; 118 E.R. 922, 927.

37 See e.g. Heyman v Darwins Ltd. [1942] A.C. 356, 378, per Lord Wright.

38 For another context, see Steinberg v Scala (Leeds) Ltd. [1923] 2 Ch. 452, 464, per Younger L.J. (rescission of a minor's contract binding unless “repudiated”).

39 Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 32, 33, respectively.

40 Mersey Steel and Iron Co. Ltd. v Naylor Benzon & Co. (1884) 9 App. Cas. 434, 438–39.

41 Freeth v Burr (1874) L.R. 9 C.P. 208, 213.

42 Mersey Steel and Iron Co. Ltd. (1884) 9 App. Cas. 434, 443.

43 Ibid., at pp. 443–44.

44 See note 80 below.

45 Lord Blackburn's requirement of an “absolute refusal” must now be taken with a grain of salt. See e.g. Warinco AG v Samor SpA [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 450, 454, per Stephenson L.J.

46 Ross T. Smyth & Co. Ltd. v T.D. Bailey Son & Co. [1940] 3 All E.R. 60, 72. The other members of the House of Lords agreed.

47 See e.g. Atlantic Underwriting Agencies Ltd. v Compagnia di Assicurazione di Milano SpA [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 240; Dolphin Hellas Shipping S.A. v Itemslot Ltd. (The Aegean Dolphin) [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 178, 186, per Hobhouse J. See further below, text at fn. 130 (noncompliance with notice to perform).

48 See e.g. Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44].

49 Except that he considered the breach to be actual.

50 The charters continued under a without prejudice agreement. Hire at the (lower) market rate was payable if the charterers’ termination was upheld.

51 Because the instruction had been given to the masters, the others thought the breach was actual. The “majority” emphasised that termination preceded action on the instruction.

52 See Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. [1979] A.C. 757, 778, per Lord Wilberforce, 783, per Lord Fraser.

53 Ibid., at p. 778.

54 Ibid., at p. 778.

55 Ibid., at pp. 778–79.

56 Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 72. The passage is to the same effect as that quoted in note 15 above.

57 Decro-Wall International S.A. v Practitioners in Marketing Ltd. [1971] 1 W.L.R. 361, 380.

58 Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. [1979] A.C. 757, 779.

59 See note 21 above. See also Valilas v Januzai [2014] EWCA Civ 436; [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 1047, at [52], per Floyd L.J. (with whom Arden L.J. agreed). Contrast SK Shipping (S) Pte Ltd. v Petroexport Ltd. (The Pro Victor) [2009] EWHC 2974 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 158, at [86], per Flaux J. The same point may perhaps be inferred from comparison of Guest, A.G. (ed.), Chitty on Contracts, 24th ed. (London 1977)Google Scholar, paras. 1479–1482 with the corresponding paras in the current edition, as cited in note 2 above.

60 The charterers put their case in terms of the distinction. See Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. [1979] A.C. 757, 769, 770. The distinction is integral to the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (NZ). Section 36(1)(a) confers a right to terminate (“cancel”) for refusal to perform (“words or conduct” by which a promisor makes “clear that he does not intend to perform his obligations”). Section 37 confers a cancellation right for prospective breach (when it is “clear” that the promisor will breach an “essential” term or commit a breach satisfying the Hongkong Fir criterion).

61 Curiously, in the key passage as reported in Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. [1979] A.C. 757, 778–79, although the quotation of the Hongkong Fir criterion begins a new line, the text appears to run on from Lord Wright's test in Smyth [1940] 3 All E.R. 60. Other reports of Federal Commerce and Navigation Co. Ltd. [1979] A.C. 757 contain slightly different versions of this passage, but in all the Hongkong Fir criterion is clearly separated from Lord Wright's test: see [1979] 3 W.L.R. 991, 999; [1979] 1 All E.R. 307, 314; [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 201, 207. That intention is made clear by Lord Wilberforce's observations immediately following.

62 See Valilas [2014] EWCA Civ 436; [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 1047, at [34], per Underhill L.J. Nor did Lord Wilberforce equate all the quoted formulations with the conclusory test that the “breach must go to the root of the contract”. But cf. Devonport Borough Council v Robbins [1979] 1 N.Z.L.R. 1, 24, per Cooke and Quilliam JJ.

63 Cf. Sentinel International Ltd. v Cordes [2008] UKPC 59, at [43], per the court; Kuwait Rocks Co. v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc. (The Astra) [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 69, at [21]ff., per Flaux J.

64 Woodar Investment Development Ltd. v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277.

65 See ibid., at pp. 282–83, per Lord Wilberforce (with whom Lord Scarman agreed), 287–88, per Lord Salmon, 292, per Lord Russell, 294, per Lord Keith, 298, per Lord Scarman. See also Gold Coast Oil Co. Pty. Ltd. v Lee Properties Pty. Ltd. [1985] 1 Qd. R. 416, 420, per Connolly J. (for the court).

66 Article 72(1) of CISG is analogous. An “anticipatory breach” occurs if it is “clear” that the promisor “will commit a fundamental breach” (as defined in Article 25). See also UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016, Article 7.3.3 (“fundamental non-performance”). Mechanisms dealing with performance insecurity serve to justify the approach. See below, text at fn. 119.

67 See e.g. Bunge GmbH v CCV Landbouwbelang GA [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 458, 461, per Roskill L.J. (with whom Ormrod L.J. and Sir David Cairns agreed); Rederi Kommanditselskaabet Merc-Scandia IV v Couniniotis S.A. (The Mercanaut) [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 183, 185, per Lloyd J.

68 Spettabile Consorzio Veneziano di Armamento e Navigazione v Northumberland Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. (1919) 121 L.T. 628, 635, per Atkin L.J. (approved in Woodar Investment Development Ltd. [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277).

69 See e.g. Associated Newspapers Ltd. v Bancks (1951) 83 C.L.R. 322, 339, per the court.

70 Diplock L.J. was concerned to do so without resorting to the device of implying a promissory condition. See Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 71 (“unnecessary colophon”). Cf. Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 63–64, per Upjohn L.J.

71 See note 92 below and generally F.M.B. Reynolds, “Warranty, Condition and Fundamental Term” (1963) 79 L.Q.R. 534; D. Nolan, “Hongkong Fir Shipping Co. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd., The Hongkong Fir (1961)” in Mitchell and Mitchell, Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract, p. 269.

72 See Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 33.

73 The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447, at [78], per Gross L.J. (with whom Sir Terence Etherton M.R. and Hamblen L.J. agreed). See also e.g. Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44].

74 Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377, at [38]. Cf. B S & N Ltd. (BVI) v Micado Shipping Ltd. (Malta) (The Seaflower) (No.2) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 341, 352, per Rix L.J., with whom Jonathan Parker L.J. agreed (“Hongkong Fir repudiation”).

75 See Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 56, per Sellers L.J., 65, per Upjohn L.J.

76 Salmon J. used “repudiation” to refer to “rescission”. See note 39 above.

77 Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 64. The passage is quoted in Ampurius Nu Homes Holdings Ltd. [2013] EWCA Civ 577; [2013] 4 All E.R. 377.

78 Bunge Corp. New York v Tradax Export S.A. Panama [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711.

79 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council [2007] HCA 61; (2007) 233 C.L.R. 115.

80 See note 42 above.

81 The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447, at [81], [87]. The latter includes a conclusion that the charterers had engaged in conduct that sought to convert a “contract for payment in advance into a transaction for unsecured credit”.

82 Cf. Forslind v Bechely-Crundall 1922 S.C. (HL) 173, 190, per Lord Dunedin (“shilly-shallying attitude in regard to the contract”).

83 See notes 101, 103ff., below.

84 See note 24 above.

85 The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447, at [85]. Cf. The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447, at [82] (“the prospective non-performance foreshadowed”).

86 Ibid.., at [83].

87 Ibid., at [87].

88 We ignore the point that the mirror image model logically required each charter to be considered on its merits.

89 See also, in the sale of goods context, Maple Flock Co. Ltd. v Universal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd. [1934] 1 K.B. 148, 157, per Lord Hewart C.J., for the Court of Appeal (“ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole”); Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1976] Q.B. 44 (percentage of damaged goods, and diminution in value); Tradax Internacional S.A. v Goldschmidt S.A. [1977] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 604 (percentage of foreign matter).

90 See also Kuwait Rocks Co. [2013] EWHC 865 (Comm); [2013] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 69, where there is much discussion of whether charterers threatened a breach going to the “root” of the contract even though their conduct was a denial of willingness (or ability) to pay hire in full as and when it fell due. Cf. Northern Foods Plc v Focal Foods Ltd. [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 728.

91 Cf. Valilas [2014] EWCA Civ 436; [2015] 1 All E.R. (Comm.) 1047, where the majority concluded against repudiation because the Hongkong Fir criterion was not satisfied. Underhill L.J.’s dissenting judgment – applying the differentiated model – is more compelling.

92 Davis Contractors Ltd. v Fareham Urban District Council [1956] A.C. 696, 729.

93 See e.g. F A Tamplin SS Co. Ltd. v Anglo-Mexican Petroleum Products Co. Ltd. [1916] 2 A.C. 397; Tsakiroglou & Co. Ltd. v Noblee Thorl GmbH [1962] A.C. 93; Ocean Tramp Tankers Corp. v V/O Sovfracht (The Eugenia) [1964] 2 Q.B. 226.

94 Scanlan's New Neon Ltd. v Tooheys Ltd. (1943) 67 C.L.R. 169. Cf. National Carriers Ltd. v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd. [1981] A.C. 675 (10-year lease of warehouse premises not frustrated when the only access to the warehouse ceased to be available due to a road closure likely to last about 20 months).

95 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council [2007] HCA 61; (2007) 233 C.L.R. 115, at [44], per Gleeson C.J., Gummow, Heydon and Crennan JJ.

96 Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty. Ltd. v Todd [2002] UKPC 50; [2004] 1 N.Z.L.R. 289, at [58], per the court.

97 That is how the issue is approached in an appeal. See e.g. Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH v Itex Itagrani Export S.A. [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 360, 361–62, per Saville J.

98 See note 53 above (“gloss”).

99 See e.g. Forslind 1922 S.C. (HL) 173, 179, per Viscount Haldane (“sufficient” for a reasonable person to conclude that the promisor “does not intend to perform the obligations he has undertaken”); Heyman [1942] A.C. 356, 379, per Lord Wright (“evinces an intention no longer to be bound”).

100 Cf. Vaswani v Italian Motors (Sales and Services) Ltd. [1996] 1 W.L.R. 270, 276, per the Privy Council (bona fide demand for excessive amount not a repudiation).

101 See e.g. Total Oil Great Britain Ltd. v Thompson Garages (Biggin Hill) Ltd. [1972] 1 Q.B. 318 (insistence on bankers draft before delivery, when contract required cash on delivery); BV Oliehandel Jongkind v Coastal International Ltd. [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 463, 465, per Leggatt J. (insistence on payment in advance); Alan Auld Associates Ltd. v Rick Pollard Associates [2008] EWCA Civ 655; [2008] B.L.R. 419.

102 Suisse Atlantique Société d'Armement Maritime S.A. v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 A.C. 361, 435; see also 394, per Viscount Dilhorne, 429, per Lord Upjohn. See Stannard and Capper, Termination for Breach of Contract, §§7.21–7.26.

103 See Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v Ansell (1888) 38 Ch. D. 339, 362, per Bowen L.J. Cf. Yam Seng Pte Ltd. v International Trade Corp. Ltd. [2013] EWHC 111 (QB); [2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 526, at [171], per Leggatt J.

104 General Engineering Services Ltd. v Kingston and St Andrew Corporation [1989] 1 W.L.R. 69, 72; [1988] 3 All E.R. 867, 869. Cf. Secretary of State for Employment v ASLEF (No.2) [1972] 2 Q.B. 455.

105 Rigby v Ferodo Ltd. [1988] I.C.R. 29, 33, per Lord Oliver (with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed). See also Cantor Fitzgerald International v Callaghan [1999] 2 All E.R. 411, 420; [1999] I.C.R. 639, 649, per Judge L.J. (with whom Nourse and Tuckey L.JJ. agreed).

106 Abu Dhabi National Tanker Co. v Product Star Shipping Ltd. (The Product Star) (No.2) [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 397, 407. Mann and Balcombe L.JJ. agreed. See also Aktieselskabet Pitwood (1926) 24 Ll L. Rep. 282, where wilful refusal to unload cargo at the agreed place within the port under CIF contract was held to be a repudiation. The relevant clause required the ship to berth at that part of the port where goods could be discharged by crane, rather than by hand. That the conduct was a repudiation was considered so obvious that counsel for the respondent was not called upon. Cf. P v A [2008] EWHC 1361 (Comm); [2008] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 415, at [19], per David Steel J. (insistence on entitlement to move laycan period).

107 See Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty. Ltd. [2002] UKPC 50; [2004] 1 N.Z.L.R. 289, at [59], per the court (franchise contract governed by NSW law). See also Mafracht v Parnes Shipping Co. S.A. (The Apollonius) [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 405, 415, per Bingham J. (deliberate refusal to pay hire under charterparty coupled with threat not to pay in future).

108 See e.g. Laws v London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers) Ltd. [1959] 1 W.L.R. 698; [1959] 2 All E.R. 285; Crocs Europe BV v Anderson (t/a Spectrum Agencies (A Partnership)) [2012] EWCA Civ 1400; [2013] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1, at [49], per Mummery L.J. (with whom Hughes L.J. agreed).

109 See also Gledhill v Bentley Designs (UK) Ltd. [2010] EWHC 1965 (QB); [2011] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 270 (verbal abuse).

110 See Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd. (1931) 45 C.L.R. 359.

111 SOS Kinderdorf International v Bittaye [1996] 1 W.L.R. 987, 993, per the Privy Council.

112 Concut Pty. Ltd. v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; (2000) 176 A.L.R. 693, at [51], per Kirby J.

113 Nigel Fryer Joinery Services Ltd. v Ian Firth Hardware Ltd. [2008] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 108 (CC Man.).

114 See e.g. Lombard North Central Plc v Butterworth [1987] Q.B. 527, 535, per Mustill L.J. (with whom Lawton L.J. agreed). Later events may impact on quantification. See e.g. Bunge S.A. v Nidera BV (formerly Nidera Handelscompagnie BV) [2015] UKSC 43; [2015] Bus. L.R. 987.

115 Hence debate about whether discharge for breach or repudiation is limited to “synallagmatic” contracts (Hongkong Fir [1962] 2 Q.B. 26, 66, per Diplock L.J.), and suggestions that a promisee who has fully performed cannot terminate for repudiation. See the discussion in The STX Mumbai [2015] SGCA 35; [2016] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 157. The idea was ultimately rejected: at [63].

116 See notes 28ff. above.

117 See notes 95ff. above.

118 See note 68 above (clear or quite plain).

119 Under Article 71 a party may suspend performance pending an adequate assurance of due performance if it “becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligations”. See also Article 72(2) (restriction on right of termination (“avoidance”) for anticipatory breach). Delay by one party entitles the other to “fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance” (Articles 47(1), 63(1)) and to avoid the contract if performance does not occur within the time fixed (Articles 49(1)(b), 64(1)(b)). See also UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2016, Articles 7.1.5, 7.3.4.

120 See e.g. Steelwood Carriers Inc. of Monrovia Liberia v Evimeria Compania Naviera S.A. of Panama (The Agios Giorgis) [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 192 (no implication from express right to terminate).

121 See Universal Cargo Carriers Corp. [1957] 2 Q.B. 401, 450, per Devlin J.

122 See e.g. BV Oliehandel Jongkind [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 463, 465 (clause dealing with “impaired” financial responsibility). Conditions precedent to performance operate analogously to an express right of suspension.

123 Cf. Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A. (The Simona) [1989] A.C. 788 (impact of “unaccepted repudiation”).

124 See generally Treitel, G.H., “Some Problems of Breach of Contract” (1967) 30 M.L.R. 139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 154, 155; White, J.J., “Eight Cases and Section 251” (1982) 67 Cornell L.Rev. 841 Google Scholar; Carter, J.W., “Adequate Assurance of Due Performance” (1996) 11 J.C.L. 1 Google Scholar; Saidov, D., “Anticipatory Non-Performance and Underlying Values of the UNIDROIT Principles” (2006) 11 Unif.L.Rev. 795 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 See Warinco AG [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 450; SK Shipping (S) Pte. Ltd. [2009] EWHC 2974 (Comm); [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 158, at [101]–[107], per Flaux J.

126 Compare the treatment of the charterers’ undertakings to clear arrears in The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447.

127 Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44].

128 See note 79 above.

129 See e.g. Laurinda Pty. Ltd. v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty. Ltd. (1989) 166 C.L.R. 623 (repudiation inferred from the promisor's attitude to performance, including deliberate delay).

130 Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44]. See also The Spar Capella [2016] EWCA Civ 982; [2016] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 447, at [104], per Sir Terence Etherton M.R.

131 See e.g. Johnson v Agnew [1980] A.C. 367, 392, per Lord Wilberforce, with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed (“uncontroversial”); Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels Ltd. [1992] Ch. 1 (adopting Louinder v Leis (1982) 149 C.L.R. 509).

132 See e.g. United Scientific Holdings Ltd. v Burnley Borough Council [1978] A.C. 904, 934, per Lord Diplock, 958, 962, per Lord Fraser; Bunge Corp. New York [1981] 1 W.L.R. 711, 720, per Lord Lowry, 729, per Lord Roskill (with whom the other members of the House of Lords agreed); Sentinel International Ltd. [2008] UKPC 59, at [41]–[43], per the court; North Eastern Properties Ltd. v Coleman [2010] EWCA Civ 277; [2010] 1 W.L.R. 2715, at [71], per Briggs J. (with whom Longmore and Smith L.JJ. agreed).

133 See note 48 above.

134 Urban 1 [2013] EWCA Civ 816; [2014] 1 W.L.R. 756, at [44]. See also Samarenko v Dawn Hill House Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 1445; [2013] 1 Ch. 36, at [65], per Rix L.J.

135 No authority is cited for the view that notices to complete given under provisions in standard form sale of land contracts operate by way of “transformation”.

136 See Stickney v Keeble [1915] A.C. 386, 418–19, per Lord Parker; United Scientific Holdings Ltd. [1978] A.C. 904, 946, per Lord Simon.

137 See note 2 above.