Anticipatory Breach CASES
In English law, anticipatory breach occurs when a party clearly indicates, through words or conduct, an intention not to fulfil their contractual obligations before performance is due.
Definition and Principles
An anticipatory breach allows the innocent party to treat the contract as immediately breached, enabling them to either terminate and claim damages or wait to see if performance occurs.
Legal Consequences
- Immediate Action: Innocent party can terminate immediately and seek remedies.
- Wait and See: Option to delay action, giving the breaching party an opportunity to perform.
Practical Implications
Clearly identifying anticipatory breaches helps parties act decisively, either minimising potential losses through immediate termination or allowing opportunities for remedy.
Importance
Understanding anticipatory breach ensures prompt recognition and effective response to potential contractual breaches, safeguarding parties’ interests.
Home » Anticipatory Breach
A ship was chartered with a clause stating it was 'expected ready to load' by a certain date. The shipowners could not reasonably have met this date. The court held this clause was a condition, allowing the charterers to terminate the contract. Facts The shipowners (claimants) chartered their vessel, the ‘Mihalis Angelos’, to the charterers (defendants) for a voyage from Haiphong in North Vietnam to a European port. The charterparty, dated 25th May 1965, contained a clause stating the vessel was ‘expected ready to load under this Charter about 1st July 1965′. The charter also included a cancelling clause, allowing
A courier was hired for a trip starting on 1 June. Before this date, the employer cancelled the contract. The courier sued immediately. The court held he was entitled to do so, establishing the doctrine of anticipatory breach. Facts In April 1852, the claimant, Hochster, a courier, entered into a contract with the defendant, De La Tour, to accompany him on a three-month tour of Europe. The employment was to commence on 1 June 1852. However, on 11 May 1852, the defendant wrote to the claimant stating that he had changed his mind and would no longer require the claimant’s
