Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Need an research paper on contract law: advise big clucker company and kima. Needs to be 8 pages. Please no plagiarism.
Need an research paper on contract law: advise big clucker company and kima. Needs to be 8 pages. Please no plagiarism. When Justin requested a 10,000-pound loan from Cluckers he threatened to renege upon his agreement to permit Cluckers’ prospective purchasers to view the machine. As a result, Cluckers was induced to grant the loan. It can be argued that Cluckers did not accept the repudiation with the result that the contract remains alive.
An anticipatory breach occurs when one party to a contract communicates to the other party that he intends to renege on a fundamental term or condition of the contract. By threatening to stop Clucker’s prospective customers viewing the chopper gives rise to an anticipatory breach. The chopper does not vest in Justin until he allows Cluckers’ prospective purchasers to view the machine in operation and is an ongoing condition of Justin’s exclusive right to possession. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, an agreement for the sale of goods does not become a sale until the “conditions are fulfilled subject to which the property in the goods is to be transferred.”
Whether or not Justin’s anticipatory breach rises to the level of repudiation will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. As Lord Selborne explained in Mersey Steel v Naylor Benzon it is necessary to look at the conduct to determine if it “amounts to renunciation” of the duty to perform under the contract “and whether the other party may accept it as a reason for performing his part.”4
On the facts, it appears that the initial purchase price negotiated between Cluckers and Justin was modified to discount for Justin’s allowing Cluckers prospective purchasers to view the machine in operation. Using Lord Selborne’s test, Justin’s conduct was such that it alters the terms of the purchase price and Cluckers could sue for the discounted difference.
The House of Lords considered whether or not the broken term in respect of a breach was such that it could give rise to a claim in damages.
