Question 1

Where there has been an anticipatory breach of contract, the injured party may sue for damages and keep the contract alive (or terminate it, as she thinks fit).

Accepted Answer

False

Question 2

The concept of anticipatory breach is pragmatically useful because: - Please select all that apply.&#10;A) The breaching party is able to escape her contractual obligations in advance.&#10;B) The injured party does not need to wait for the date of performance to pass before bringing a claim against A.&#10;C) The injured party may be able to reduce her losses to a greater extent, by quickly taking steps to mitigate those losses.&#10;D) The injured party may choose to keep the contract alive and sue for the agreed sum.

Accepted Answer

A,B,C

Question 3

What are possible justifications for the doctrine of anticipatory breach? Please select all that apply.&#10;A) There is an implied promise to maintain the contractual obligation intact from the making of the contract until it is performed.&#10;B) There is an objectively reasonable inference that the contractual obligation will not be properly performed when due.&#10;C) The innocent party always has a right to terminate the contract and sue for damages.&#10;D) It is justified wholly on pragmatic grounds.

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of anticipatory breach is justified because there is an implied promise in every contract that the parties will not do anything to undermine the execution of the agreement (A), which means if there's a clear indication that one party will not fulfill their obligations, the other party can act on that inference (B). Additionally, the doctrine is supported on pragmatic grounds (D) as it allows the non-breaching party to mitigate damages and make alternative arrangements without having to wait for the actual time of performance to confirm the breach. Option C is incorrect because the right to terminate the contract and sue for damages is a consequence of the breach, not a justification for the doctrine itself.

Question 4

If A mistakenly believes he has a right to terminate his contract with B but in fact he does not have that right, he risks being in repudiatory breach.

Accepted Answer

If A mistakenly believes he has a right to terminate the contract with B and acts on that belief by attempting to terminate the contract, A may be committing a repudiatory breach. This is because A is refusing to perform his obligations under the contract based on a mistaken belief, thereby giving B the right to claim that A has fundamentally breached the contract.

Question 5

In what circumstances may an innocent party sue for the agreed sum?&#10;A) Where the innocent party ignores the anticipatory breach, and completes performance of her side of the contract.&#10;B) Where the innocent party decides to keep the contract alive, but is unable to continue performing her contractual obligations without cooperation from the other party.&#10;C) Where the innocent party decides to keep the contract alive, and continues performance but does not fulfil her side of the bargain&#10;D) Where the innocent party accepts the breach by suing for damages.

Accepted Answer

If the innocent party ignores the anticipatory breach and completes their performance, they may sue for the agreed sum as they have fulfilled their contractual obligations.

Question 6

A claimant is able to recover the agreed sum even if her conduct was wholly unreasonable.

Accepted Answer

In contract law, a claimant's ability to recover the agreed sum can be affected by their conduct. If their conduct is deemed wholly unreasonable, it may breach the contract or negate certain conditions, potentially barring them from recovering the agreed sum.

Deck 24: Anticipatory Breach of Contract