Exciting Contract Dispute: Moore vs. Hammer
What happened between Moore and Hammer regarding the sale of the Hyundai Santa Fe?
Moore contracted to sell her 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe to Hammer for $18,500. Moore agreed to deliver the car on Wednesday, and Hammer promised to pay the $18,500 the following Friday. However, on Tuesday, Hammer informed Moore that he would not be buying the car. By Friday, Hammer changed his mind again and tendered the $18,500 to Moore. Moore refused to sell the car and deliver it to Hammer. Hammer claimed Moore breached the contract. Who is correct?
Answer:
Hammer's anticipatory repudiation could be retracted by making a proper tender of payment on the due date, and unless Moore relied on the breach to her detriment or confirmed that she considered the contract breached, she may be required to complete the sale. Thus, Hammer may have a valid claim that Moore breached the contract when she refused to sell the car after his tender of payment.
Explanation:
The question revolves around whether Moore's refusal to sell the car to Hammer after his initial repudiation is a breach of contract. When Hammer indicated that he would not be purchasing the car, he anticipatory repudiated the contract, giving Moore the option to treat the contract as canceled or to insist on performance. However, Hammer's subsequent action of retracting his repudiation and tendering the payment on the agreed date complicates the matter.
It's important to note that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) allows for retractions of repudiations unless the non-breaching party has acted in reliance on the breach to her detriment. Since Moore had not sold the car to another party nor indicated definitively that she considers the breach final, Hammer could argue that Moore breached the contract by refusing to complete the sale upon his tender of the price.
The specific contract details and jurisdiction's interpretations of the UCC could impact the outcome of this dispute.