Though an election by the injured party is stated to be a prerequisite of an anticipatory breach, what action constitutes such an election has not been much considered. Logically it would seem that an election, if necessary, must be exercised before an action is brought, but presumably the mere bringing of an action immediately after an anticipatory repudiation would be sufficient;33 as also would a notice to the repudiated of the election without any other change of position. It is, however, apparently not necessary to bring home to the repudiating party the election of the injured party. Presumably any change of position by the plaintiff whether known to the repu-diator or not, would be enough. Thus a resale of goods by a seller for the account of one who had contracted to buy them in the future but who had repudiated his contract, was held a sufficient election, though no notice of the seller's intention to make a resale was given.34

How long delay may be permitted before an election is made is also somewhat uncertain. On the one hand it is not infrequently said that the election must be promptly made; on the other hand, it has been held that unless the repudiation is withdrawn it operates as a "continuing offer" of a breach which may be taken advantage of at any time.35

32 Johnstone v. Milling, 16 Q. B.

D. 460, 472, per Lord Bowen. The late authorities continually refer to the necessity of the promisee acting ao the repudiation. What action is necessary is not stated. It is to be noticed, however, that in Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 E. & B. 678; Frost v. Knight, L. R. 7 Ex. Ill, and most of the other cases, there was no manifestation of election other than bringing ao action. This was held enough in Mutual, etc., Life Assoc: v. Taylor, 90 Va. 208, 37 S. . 854. See also supra, Sec.686.

33 See Landes v. Klopstock, 252 Fed. 89, 92, 154 C. C. A. 201.

34 Churchill Grain, etc., Co. v. Newton, 88 Conn. 130, 89 Atl. 1121.

35 In United Press Assoc, v. National