Such repudiation as will constitute a breach may take various forms besides that of a positive statement of refusal to perform. Thus selling land,42 or goods,42a to which the contract relates before the time for performance has been allowed as a cause of action. So denying the validity of the contract between the parties,43 or insisting that its meaning or legal effect are different in a material particular from the true meaning or effect, coupled with the assertion, express or implied in fact, that performance will be made only according to the erroneous interpretation.44 Marriage to another than the one to whom the defendant was engaged necessarily involves repudiation.45
38 Oliver v. Loydon, 163 Gal. 124, 124 Pac. 731; Listman Mill Co. v. Dufresne, 111 Me. 104, 88 Atl. 354; Hardeman-King Lumber Co. v. Hampton Bros., 104 Tex. 585,142 S. W. 867.
39 Benj. Sale, Sec. 568, quoted in Smoot's Owe, 15 Wall. 36, 21 L. Ed. 107. See also Mcintosh v. Miner, 37 S. Y. App. D. 483, 55 N. Y. S. 1074.
40 See infro, Sec.1331.
41 Ripley v. McClure, 4 Ex. 345. See also Moel & Tryvan v. Weir,  2 K. B. 844; Street v. Progresso, 42 Fed. 220, 50 Fed. 835,2 C. C. A. 45; Karran v. Peabody, 145 Fed. 166, 76 C. C. A. 136.
42 Ford v. Tiley, 6 B. & C. 325; Roehm v. Herat, 178 U. S. 1, 18, 44 L. Ed. 953, 20 Sup. Ct. 780; Adams v.
Bridges, 141 Ga. 418, 81 S. E. 203; Arlington Heights Realty Co. v. Citizens' Ry., etc., Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 160 S. W. 1109.
In Brimmer v. Salisbury, 167 Cal. 522, 140 Pac. 30, it was held in an action by the purchaser for the breach of an executory contract for the sale of land, that an averment merely that the vendor, since the contract was entered into, had sold the land to another, is not sufficient, since it does not negative the possibility that the rights of the purchaser were reserved in such sale.
42a Bowdell v. Parsons, 10 East, 359.
43 Draper v. Miller, 92 Kan. 695, 141 Pac. 1014.
44 But see Mowry v. Kirk, 19 Ohio St. 375, 383.