This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What are the procedures for suing a lawyer for breech of retainer?

• Same as the procedures for suing anyone for breach of any contract - they vary by jurisdiction, but you should be able to find the filing requirements on the website of your local county court. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What recourse exists for retirees, who have accepted a corporation's enhanced benefit laden early retirement offer, when the corporation splits off a solely independant corporation assigned these retirees to the newly created corporation the new corporation then sets about to eliminate the promised benefits?.

In an effort to reduce its work force a corporation makes a special early retirement offer. This offer is laden with benefits to attract as many early retirement candidates as possible. The benefits are promised for the life time of the retirees...in writing. This corporation later splits off a new corporation solely independant and assigns these retirees to the new corporation's employee pension health care plan. The retirees earned pension health care benefits are funded from an allocation 2/3rds of a multi billion dollar existing pension plan. The new corporation citing language from their newly created employee pension health care plan eliminates the promised benefits made to the former corporation's retirees. Is there any recourse for these retirees?

The thing I haven't seen explicated anywhere is why anyone would want to do this. Just to be less a jerk by saying, "Yeah, you're going to have to sue me anyway; might as well be now,"? It is a breach of contract, isn't it? The nonbreaching party would still want to sue, wouldn't it? -Dan 03:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The non-breaching party might just want to terminate, which they could legally do based on the other party's anticipatory repudiation. Kolef88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.181.74 (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey guys, could you please help me out? I'm wondering what exactly will constitute an anticipatory breach which gives the innocent party a right to terminate. In particular, I'm wondering what exactly the breaching party must say in order to to do this. Is there such thing as an anticipatory breach which does NOT give the innocent party a right to terminate? I would imagine that there is - if I contract with you to build a stadium, with grass of a certain variety, and I express an intention to put grass of a different variety there, It would be absurd if you could terminate the contract. Bearing that in mind, tehre must surely be some parallel with the condition/warranty/innominate term taxonomy of regular breach. But is it the same as with regular breach? I ask because whilst things might be clear if we just had conditions and warranties, innominate terms create a particular difficulty. When would the nature of the term, which is the subject of the intention to breach, be evaluated? It seems to me that it is crucial to determine this, because of the serious repercussions in getting it wrong. If the 'innocent' party thinks the other party has committed an anticipatory breach, and purports to accept that breach, terminating the contract, and it later turns out that the purported anticipatory breach was no breach at all, the 'innocent' party will themselves have committed an anticipatory breach! Arpitt (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In most commercial contracts, refusing to accept a reasonable modification to a contract (like changing the grass in a stadium) constitutes a failure to mitigate by the innocent party, and they would not be able to recover significant damages. In your situation, the innocent party would have to mitigate by accepting the different grass. He could still get damages for breach of contract, but only for the different grass, since the rest of the damages were mitigated by accepting the other paty's willingness to build the stadium with that different grass. See Payzu v Saunders. Metraij (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arpitt, as well the other thing may be right. The situation you discribed may be other type of breach, I belive it'll be minor breach, not anticipatory breach. In such a case the byer can recover damages and nothing more ~~Anonymous~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.69.234.12 (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says that a duty to mitigate arises when you are informed of an anticipatory breach. However, in the UK, does the rule in White and Carter v McGregor not say that the plaintiff has the option to continue with the obligations under the contract, and does not have to mitigate, until he accepts the anticipatory breach or there is an essential breach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metraij (talk • contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intro, "Anticipatory repudiation, also called an anticipatory breach, is a term in the law of contracts that describes a declaration by the promising party to a contract, that he or she does not intend to live up to his or her obligations under the contract." is incorrect. Anticipatory breach is a form of breach by the guilty party, and anticipatory repudiation is a remedy available to the innocent party. I propose to give this article a good going over! Arrivisto (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel this page should be renamed anticipatory breach. Arrivisto (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What specifies anticipatory breach (or breach by anticipatory repudiation, that's much better) is that in other cases sertain action constitutes breach (for example, a contract of sale and delivery was wrongly performed by late delivery). But anticipatory breach is constitued by non-action (a party simply refuses to perform a contract partially or in common or behaves in such a way it may be construed the party will not perform the contract). ~~The same Anonimous~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.69.234.12 (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Time of performance, when the trail that occurs after the time of performance". What does this mean? Should "trail" be "trial"? 2A00:23C5:FE0B:700:3086:E31D:D332:3D20 (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]