Repudiation: Difference between revisions

Repudiation (view source)

678 bytes removed , 20 April 2020

no edit summary

81,841

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 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.
-===In the [[Master trading agreement|Master Trading Agreements]]===
+{{Event of default vs fundamental breach}}
-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 terminate and sue for [[damages]], and those damages are hardly likely to be lower (or, really, different) than you would get under the [[close-out]] procedure prescribed in the {{t|contract}}. But anyway, a some what arid debate all told; people don’t really argue about repudiation.
 ===Compare===
 *[[Rescission]] of contract