Legal Opinion

R. T. Clark & Co. v. Miller

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1929No. 27590PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtANDersoN, J.

(After stating" the case as above.) It is true, as contended by the revenue agent, that the positive refusal to perform a contract is a breach of it, although the time for performance has not arrived, The Law of Public Contracts (Donnelly), section 304, p. 435; but the mere assertion of a party to a contract that he ivill be unable, or will refuse, to perform his contract is not sufficient to constitute a breach. There must be a distinct, unequivocal, and absolute refusal to perform, treated and acted upon as such by the other party to the contract. A mere assertion of inability to go on with…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dingley v. OlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
  2. Smoot's CaseSupreme Court of the United States · 1873
  3. Kilgore v. Northwest Texas Baptist Educational Ass'nTexas Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Adams v. HaiglerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
  5. Columbus Ry., Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1918

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Johnston v. StinsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API