Repudiation: dentist's breach does not go to the root of the contract

03 July 2014. Published by Daniel Hemming, Partner

The Court of Appeal has determined that the actual and threatened breach by a dentist of the payment terms (requiring payments to be made monthly) for the use of a practice, was not a repudiation of the contract and the principal was wrong to terminate the contract.

In Valilas v Januzaj, the payment term was held to be innominate given the particular finding that it was likely that Valilas would have made the relevant payment over the course of the contract and the only effect of the breach was the loss of use of the monthly payments. The decision reinforces that a party claiming repudiation by the actual or threatened breach of an innominate term must adduce clear evidence of the actual and anticipated effects of the breach.

For the full facts of the case and commentary please click here.

Stay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views 

Subscribe Here