Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-610 (2026)

Anticipatory repudiation

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When either party repudiates the contract with respect to a performance not yet due the loss of which will substantially impair the value of the contract to the other, the aggrieved party may

for a commercially reasonable time await performance by the repudiating party; or
resort to any remedy for breach (§ 4-2-703 or § 4-2-711), even though he has notified the repudiating party that he would await the latter's performance and has urged retraction; and
in either case suspend his own performance or proceed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter on the seller's right to identify goods to the contract notwithstanding breach or to salvage unfinished goods (§ 4-2-704).

History. Acts 1961, No. 185, § 2-610; A.S.A. 1947, § 85-2-610.

Case Notes

Construction.

The phrase “substantially impair” as used in this section requires the factfinder to look at the materiality of a party's repudiation as it relates to the entire contract. Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enters., Inc., 46 Ark. App. 237, 878 S.W.2d 786 (1994).

Partial Repudiation.

When a party repudiates as to a single installment or performance, it is incumbent on the party seeking damages under this section to prove the value of the contract as a whole was substantially impaired to justify his resort to his remedies for breach. Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enters., Inc., 46 Ark. App. 237, 878 S.W.2d 786 (1994).

Remedies.

Where contractor repudiated his contract with supplier, supplier pursuant to this section could resort to any available remedy for sellers, principally damages for nonacceptance under § 4-2-708, but subsection (1) of that section was unavailable where supplier could not have then tendered performance, leaving supplier its remedy for net profits under subsection (2) of § 4-2-708. Capital Steel Co. v. Foster & Creighton Co., 264 Ark. 683, 574 S.W.2d 256 (1978).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1994–1998 · leading case: Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 20× “At the conclusion of appellant's case, the trial court granted appellee's motion for directed verdict, holding that appellant had failed to produce any evidence that appellee's repudiation of the contract had substantially impaired the value of the contract to appellant as…”

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ellison, 974 S.W.2d 464 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 2× “2d 786 (1994) (holding that the party seeking damages under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-610 (Repl. 1991) must prove that the conduct was justified under that section).”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 4-2-610(b) — 1 case

Cargill, Inc. v. Storms Agri Enter., Inc., 878 S.W.2d 786 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). “At the conclusion of appellant's case, the trial court granted appellee's motion for directed verdict, holding that appellant had failed to produce any evidence that appellee's repudiation of the contract had substantially impaired the value of the contract to appellant as…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.