Sec. 2905. Renunciation As To Present Or Future Time
Description
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.
Sec. 2905. Renunciation As To Present Or Future Time
To amount to renuuciation the declaration of the party renouncing must refer to the present time, and must show that he does not look upon it as binding him. His statement while performing in good faith that he intends to abandon at some time in the future does not amount to breach by renunciation.1 If the parties have reduced the contract to writing under the agreement that it should be sent to one of them when in final form for his signature, his previous statement to the agent of the adversary party that he would not sign such contract unless it was modified in a certain respect, is not a renunciation.2 A statement of a party to the effect that he has not at that time the financial ability to perform certain covenants which call for future performance, does not amount to a repudiation of the contract if he recognizes it as in effect and attempts in good faith to perform.3
8 Trowbridge v. Jefferson Auto Co., 92 Conn. 660, 103 Atl. 843.
9 Petersburg Fire, Brick & Tile Co. v. American Gay Machinery Co., 89 O. S. 366, L. R. A. 1915B, 530, 106 N. E. 33.
10 Petersburg Fire, Brick & Tile Co. v. American Clay Machinery Co., 89 O. S. 366, L. R. A. 1916B, 636, 106 N. E. 33.
1 England. Johnstone v Milling, L. R. 16 Q. B. Div. 460.
United States. Smoot's Case, 82 U. 8. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. ed. 107.
Iowa. Nancolaa v. Hitaffer, 136 la. 341, 12 L. R. A. (N.8.) 864, 112 N. W. 382.
Kentucky. Hollerbach & May Contract Co. v. Wilkins, 130 Ky. 61, 112 S. W. 1126.
West Virginia. Swiger v. Hayman, 66 W. Va. 123, 107 Am. St. Rep. 899, 48 S. E. 839 (obiter).
Texas. Kilgore v. Educational Society, 90 Tex. 139, 37 S. W. 698.
See also, Maud v. Maud, 33 O. S. 147, in which, however, it is possible that there was no renunciation at all but merely a demand for performance in accordance with its terms and a refusal to consent to any alteration.
2 HolIerbach & May Contract Co. v. Wilkins, 130 Ky. 51, 112 S. W. 1126.
3 Johnstone v. Milling, L. R. 16 Q. B. Div. 460; Nancolaa v. Hitaffer, 136 Ia. 341, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 864, 112 N. W. 382.
Contra, Hobbs v. Columbia Falls Brick Co., 167 Mass. 109, 31 N. E. 766.
Continue to:
My Books
