McCloskey & Co. v. Minweld Steel Co.
220 F.2d 101 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a party's communication to constitute an anticipatory repudiation of a contract, it must contain an absolute and unequivocal refusal to perform or a distinct and positive statement of an inability to do so. A mere expression of difficulty in obtaining necessary materials, coupled with a request for assistance from the other party, does not meet this standard.
Facts:
- In May 1950, McCloskey & Co., a general contractor, entered into three contracts with Minweld Steel Co., a subcontractor, for the latter to furnish and erect structural steel for two hospital buildings.
- The contracts did not have a specific performance date but stipulated that materials were to be furnished as directed by McCloskey and that prompt performance was the 'essence' of the agreement.
- On June 8, 1950, McCloskey asked Minweld for a delivery and erection schedule, and Minweld replied on June 13 with an estimated timeline.
- On July 20, 1950, McCloskey wrote to Minweld threatening to terminate the contracts unless Minweld provided 'unqualified assurances' that it had arranged for the procurement and delivery of the steel within thirty days.
- On July 24, 1950, Minweld responded by letter, detailing its inability to secure steel from major suppliers due to a tightening market and the Korean War.
- In the same letter, Minweld stated it was 'anxious' to avoid delay and asked McCloskey for assistance in obtaining the necessary steel from a supplier, stating it had 'nowhere else to turn.'
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff McCloskey & Co. sued Defendant Minweld Steel Co. in federal district court for anticipatory breach of contract.
- The case proceeded to trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for judgment.
- The district court judge granted the defendant's motions, dismissing the action on the ground that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case.
- The district court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motions for new trials and to vacate the judgments.
- Plaintiff McCloskey & Co., as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a subcontractor's letter, which states its difficulty in procuring necessary materials and requests the general contractor's assistance, constitute an anticipatory breach of contract through an absolute and unequivocal refusal to perform?
Opinions:
Majority - McLaughlin, J.
No. A subcontractor's expression of difficulty in performing coupled with a request for assistance does not constitute an anticipatory breach. The court, applying Pennsylvania law, held that a renunciation amounting to a breach requires an 'absolute and unequivocal refusal to perform or a distinct and positive statement of an inability to do so.' Minweld's letter of July 24 did not meet this standard; it merely conveyed the company's difficulties, expressed a desire to complete the project, and solicited aid from the general contractor. The letter contained no indication that Minweld had abandoned hope or intended to repudiate the contracts. It was McCloskey's action of terminating the contracts, rather than offering assistance, that eliminated any chance of performance. Furthermore, McCloskey had no contractual right to demand the 'unqualified assurances' it sought in its July 20 letter.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to establish an anticipatory repudiation. It clarifies that a party's expression of doubt or difficulty, even if significant, does not amount to a breach unless it is a positive and unequivocal statement of non-performance. The ruling protects parties facing unforeseen supply-chain or market difficulties from having their contracts prematurely terminated. It suggests that a party cannot unilaterally demand assurances it is not entitled to under the contract and then use the other party's inability to provide them as a pretext for claiming repudiation.
Unlock the full brief for McCloskey & Co. v. Minweld Steel Co.