Wait, hold up. Repudiation means the innocent party can just say, 'Nope, this contract is done.' So, I'm with Marcos on this one. Option D all the way.
Nah, I think you're all wrong. Option A has got to be the answer. The court forces the supplier to keep performing the contract, even after a breach. That's what repudiation is all about, right?
I don't know, guys. Option C seems like it could be the right answer. If the supplier breaches, the buyer should be able to find someone else to get the job done. Seems like the most practical solution to me.
You know, I was reading up on this the other day, and I'm pretty sure option D is the correct answer. Repudiation means the innocent party can just walk away from the contract, like it never existed. That's the whole point, right?
Hmm, I think option B is the way to go. If someone breaches the contract, they should have to pay up. That'll teach them a lesson! Plus, it's fair compensation for the other party.
I'm not really sure what repudiation of a contract means, but option D sounds the most appealing to me. I mean, who wouldn't want to just pretend the contract never happened, right? No consequences, no fuss.
upvoted 0 times
...
Log in to Pass4Success
Sign in:
Report Comment
Is the comment made by USERNAME spam or abusive?
Commenting
In order to participate in the comments you need to be logged-in.
You can sign-up or
login
Quinn
11 days agoEugene
13 days agoStevie
14 days agoMarcos
15 days agoLavelle
17 days agoHelene
19 days ago