← All traps
MisconceptionObserved in bank

Implied Warranty Triggers Anticipatory Breach

This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”

Subject distribution

  • Contracts1

Example wrong choices

  • 14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice AAlthough the doctrine of anticipatory breach is not applicable under the prevailing view if, at the time of repudiation, the repudiatee owes the repudiator no remaining duty of performance, the doctrine applies in this case because Daniel, the repudiatee, remains potentially liable under an implied warranty that the page advanced to Paul was genuine.

    Why it's attractive

    This names a real UCC concept (implied warranty) but it doesn't answer whether Daniel can sue before the performance date.

    Why it's wrong

    This names a real UCC concept (implied warranty) but it doesn't answer whether Daniel can sue before the performance date.

  • 14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice BDaniel's implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in enforcement of the contract required him to mitigate his losses on the rising market by suing promptly, as he did, after becoming reasonably apprehensive of a prospective breach by Paul.

    Why it's attractive

    Mitigation limits recovery after breach; it doesn't determine whether you can sue before the performance date.

    Why it's wrong

    Mitigation limits recovery after breach; it doesn't determine whether you can sue before the performance date.

  • 14483_rare-bible-atlas · CONTRACTS · Choice CAnticipatory repudiation, as a deliberate disruption without legal excuse of an ongoing contractual relationship between the parties, may be treated by the repudiatee at his election as a present tort, actionable at once.

    Why it's attractive

    This sounds right — Paul did deliberately disrupt the relationship, and Daniel can sue now. But is this a tort or a contract issue?

    Why it's wrong

    This sounds right — Paul did deliberately disrupt the relationship, and Daniel can sue now. But is this a tort or a contract issue?

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →
Implied Warranty Triggers Anticipatory Breach — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix