If the buyer refuses to accept an instalment which is tendered to him, such refusal suggests a renunciation or repudiation of liability under the contract on his part, to a much greater degree than failure on his part to pay for the goods after having accepted them; and accordingly it is generally held that his refusal to accept the goods justifies the seller in treating the contract as discharged.1 Under this theory it is held that if the seller refuses to deliver the second instalment on the ground that the first instalment is not paid for, in accordance with the terms of the contract, and the seller brings an action to recover damages, it is a question of fact to be determined under an appropriate charge whether the conduct of the seller was sufficient to justify the breach on the part of the buyer.2 In this case, while the charge of the trial court was held to be very vague, a verdict and judgment in favor of the seller were upheld on the theory that the jury had found its way correctly, although the trial court had not furnished it with a compass.3