Repudiation: Difference between revisions

{{g}}To repudiate a [[contract]] is to indicate an inability or unwillingness to perform it in such a way as to deprive the aggrieved party of substantially the whole benefit of the bargain represented by the contract.

Does “failure to pay an amount due by the time specified in a contract” constitute a [[repudiatory breach]]? Usually failure to pay may be a specific [[event of default]] prescribing exactly what should happen — so this question is moot — but it may apply where you have a lender of a revolving credit facility, or a prime broker.  

If your contract stipulates that [[time is of the essence]], then yes. If not, then it will depend on the circumstances. If the [[failure to pay]] was due to a [[force majeure]]-style external event, probably not. If the failure to pay was accompanied by an extended middle finger, more likely.

Both the {{2002ma}} and the {{gmsla}} have a repudiation as a specific {{isdaprov|Event of Default}}<ref>{{gmslaprov|Repudiation}} under the {{gmsla}} and {{isdaprov|Repudiation of Agreement}} under the {{2002ma}}.</ref>, though it doesn’t really need to be — if the other guy has indicated he doesn’t regard the {{t|contract}} as being binding on him, you can rescind and sue for damages, and those damages are hardly likely to be lower (or, really, different) than you would get under the formalised closeout procedure. But anyway, a some what arid debate all told; people don’t really argue about repudiation.