Claiming Damages upon an Anticipatory Breach: Why should an Acceptance Be Necessary?

Legal Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 559-577, 2005

19 Pages Posted: 2 Aug 2010

See all articles by Qiao Liu

Qiao Liu

City University of Hong Kong (CityU) - School of Law

Date Written: July, 20 2010

Abstract

This article is an attempt to defend the English rule that an anticipatory breach does not automatically give rise to a right of action for damages unless and until it is ‘accepted’. The article first explores the major arguments for and against the rule and finds that the rule is justifiable on the ground of finality and consistency and that none of its objections are persuasive enough to overturn the rule. The article further observes that the rule must be qualified in two important respects in order to retain its rational force. However, the above rule is currently stated by the courts to the effect that an anticipatory breach is not per se a breach and is only ‘converted’ into a breach when it is ‘accepted’. It is proposed that this statement is historically unwarranted and contradicts sound logic and should thus be discarded.

Keywords: Anticipatory Breach, Acceptance, the Breach-Conversion Rule, Conditional Damages Claim Proposition

Suggested Citation

Liu, Qiao, Claiming Damages upon an Anticipatory Breach: Why should an Acceptance Be Necessary? (July, 20 2010). Legal Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 559-577, 2005, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1645783

Qiao Liu (Contact Author)

City University of Hong Kong (CityU) - School of Law ( email )

6/F, Lee Shau Kee Building
Kowloon, Shatin, New Territories
Hong Kong

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
1,133
Abstract Views
4,225
Rank
41,693
PlumX Metrics