is due. In these circumstances, there is no breach of contract, with the result that damages cannot be awarded at that stage. If the market price for goods of the kind contracted for is buoyant, the buyer will profit by waiting, but the reverse will be the case in a declining market for the same goods. In this latter event, the buyer would be better off if he were to accept the repudiation and treat the contract as being at an end. In Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd, the House of Lords held that on repudiation of a contract the aggrieved party could elect whether to accept the repudiation or affirm the contract. An ‘acceptance’ of the repudiation did not require any particular form so long as the aggrieved party clearly and unambiguously demonstrated to the repudiating party that he/she was treating the contract as having been brought to an end by the breach Notification, in any formal sense, was not required where the fact of the ‘acceptance’ came to the repudiating party’s attention. Moreover, a failure to continue with performance on their part by the innocent party were capable of signifying to the repudiating party that ‘acceptance’ of repudiation had to take place. In the words of Lord Steyn (at p 811):

DOI link for is due. In these circumstances, there is no breach of contract, with the result that damages cannot be awarded at that stage. If the market price for goods of the kind contracted for is buoyant, the buyer will profit by waiting, but the reverse will be the case in a declining market for the same goods. In this latter event, the buyer would be better off if he were to accept the repudiation and treat the contract as being at an end. In Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd, the House of Lords held that on repudiation of a contract the aggrieved party could elect whether to accept the repudiation or affirm the contract. An ‘acceptance’ of the repudiation did not require any particular form so long as the aggrieved party clearly and unambiguously demonstrated to the repudiating party that he/she was treating the contract as having been brought to an end by the breach Notification, in any formal sense, was not required where the fact of the ‘acceptance’ came to the repudiating party’s attention. Moreover, a failure to continue with performance on their part by the innocent party were capable of signifying to the repudiating party that ‘acceptance’ of repudiation had to take place. In the words of Lord Steyn (at p 811):

is due. In these circumstances, there is no breach of contract, with the result that damages cannot be awarded at that stage. If the market price for goods of the kind contracted for is buoyant, the buyer will profit by waiting, but the reverse will be the case in a declining market for the same goods. In this latter event, the buyer would be better off if he were to accept the repudiation and treat the contract as being at an end. In Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd, the House of Lords held that on repudiation of a contract the aggrieved party could elect whether to accept the repudiation or affirm the contract. An ‘acceptance’ of the repudiation did not require any particular form so long as the aggrieved party clearly and unambiguously demonstrated to the repudiating party that he/she was treating the contract as having been brought to an end by the breach Notification, in any formal sense, was not required where the fact of the ‘acceptance’ came to the repudiating party’s attention. Moreover, a failure to continue with performance on their part by the innocent party were capable of signifying to the repudiating party that ‘acceptance’ of repudiation had to take place. In the words of Lord Steyn (at p 811):