This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If a party to a contract repudiates the contract, or refuses to perform it when the time for performance on his part has arrived, or while the adversary party is performing the contract on his part, such renunciation is held to amount to a breach which operates as a discharge1 even in jurisdictions in which it is held that there can not be a breach by renunciation before the time for performance has arrived.2 If the adversary party has already done everything to be done by him under the terms of the contract, a right of action exists in his favor at once.3 If he has not performed, such breach gives a right of action to the adversary party at once, though he has not performed the covenants of the contract on his part to be performed.4 Breach by renunciation during performance excuses further performance by the adversary party as a condition precedent to recovery on his part.5 Such breach also excuses performance of other acts which by the terms of the contract would have been conditions precedent, which would have to be performed before performance by the adversary party could be required.6 Further demand is not necessary to put the party breaking the contract in default, even if such demand and tender of performance would otherwise be a covenant concurrent with the covenants of the party breaking the contract7 In cases of breach during performance it is no defense that the work done under the contract has been of no benefit to the party in default.8
4 McDermott v. Mahoney, 139 la. 202, 115 N. W. 32, 116 N. W. 788. 5 Long v. Conklin. 75 III. 32; Mount Vernon Brewing Co. v. Teschner, 108 Md. 158, 16 L. R A. (NS.) 758, 69 AH 702.
6 Long v. Conklin, 75 IIl. 32. 7 Long v. Conklin. 75 III 32.
8 McAllister v. Safley, 65 la 710, 23 N. W. 130; Durkee v Gunn. 41 Kan 496, 13 Am. St. Rep. 300, 21 Pac.
637; Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. Brandt, 08 Kan. 587, L. R. A 1917A, 1000, 158 Pac. 1120; Davidor v. Bradford, 129 Wis. 524. 100 N. W. 576.
See Sec. 2898
9 Kansas Flour Mills Co. v. Brandt, 98 Kan 587, L. R. A. 1917A, 1000, 158 Pac 1120.
10 Davidor v. Bradford, 120 Wis. 524, 100 N. \V. 576.
1 England. General Billposting Co. v. Atkinson [1909], A C. 118 [affirming (1908), 1 Ch. 537]; Measures Bros v. Measures [1910], 2 Ch. 248 [affirming (1010), 1 Ch 336].
United States. Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble, 153 U. S 540, 38 L ed 814; Edward nines Lumber Co. v. Alley, 73 Fed 603; Shubert v. Rosenberger, 204 Fed 934, 45 L. R A. (N.S) 1062; Knotts v. Clark Construction Co, 240 Fed. 181
California. McConnell v. Corona City Water Co, 149 Cal 60, 8 L. R. A (N.S.) 1171, 85 Pac 929.
District of Columbia. Landvoigt v. Paul, 27 1). C. App 423
Georgia Timmcrman v. Stanley, 123 Ga 850, 1 L. R A (N.S.) 379, 51 S. E. 760
Massachusetts. Douplas v. Lowell, 104 Mass 268. 80 N E. 510; Parrot v. Mexican Central Ry, 207 Mass. 184. 34 L. R. A. (NS.) 261, 03 N. E. 500.
Minnesota. Benson v. Larson, 05 Minn 438, 111 Am. St Rep. 479, 104 N. W. 307.
Nebraska. Howard County v. Pesha, - Neb. - , 172 N W. 55.
Nevada. Bradley v. Nevada-California-Oregon Ry., 42 Nev. 411, 178 Pac. 006.
New York. Burtis v. Thompson, 42 N Y. 246, 1 Am. Rep 516.
Ohio. Petersburg Fire, Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co, 89 O. S. 365, L. R A. 1015B, 536, 106 N. E 33.
Pennsylvania. Dobbling v. York Springs Ry., 207 Pa. St. 123, 56 Atl. 349.
Washington. Bishop v. T. Ryan Construction Co., - Wash. - , 180 Pac. 126.
Wisconsin. Richards v. Manitowoc & Northern Traction Co, 140 Wis. 85, 121 N W. 937.
2 Douglass v. Lowell, 104 Mass. 268, 80 N. E. 510; Parrot v. Mexican Central Ry., 207 Mass. 184, 34 L. R. A (NS) 261, 03 N. E. 500; Howard County v. Pesha, - Neb. - , 172 N. W. 55.
3 Hand v. Gas Engine & Power Co., 167 N Y. 142. 60 N. E. 425.
4 McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 140 Cal. 60, 8 L R. A. (N.S.) 1171. 85 Pac. 020; Thompson v. Brown, 106 la. 367, 76 N. W. 810; Parrot v. Mexican Central Ry., 207 Mass. 184, 34 L. R. A. (NS.) 261, 03 N. E. 500; Chapman v. Ry., 146 Mo. 481, 48 S. W. 646.
5 McElwee v. Improvement Co., 54 Fed. 627; McConnell v. Corona City Water Co., 140 Cal 60, 8 L. R. A.
 
Continue to: