Ratliff v. Hardison

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B
199 P.3d 696 (2008)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A retraction of an anticipatory repudiation is only effective if it is a clear, definite, absolute, and unequivocal manifestation of the repudiating party's intent to perform under the terms of the original contract. A party who anticipatorily repudiates a contract cannot subsequently demand performance or exercise a statutory right of rescission that was contingent on the contract.

Facts:

In January 2006, Daniel Hardison contracted to purchase 1,020 acres of farmland from Alvin Ratliff for $3,500,000, with a closing date of August 1, 2006, and deposited $100,000 in escrow as earnest money.
In early 2006, Hardison learned of a state law, A.R.S. § 33-422, which could potentially require Ratliff to provide a disclosure affidavit and give Hardison a five-day right to rescind the contract upon receipt.
On July 22, 2006, Hardison left Ratliff a voicemail offering to buy only a portion of the land for a significantly reduced price.
Towards the end of July, before the closing date, Hardison told both Ratliff and his own banker that he had decided not to purchase the farm.
On August 9, after the closing date passed, Hardison told Ratliff he still wanted to purchase the land but wished to renegotiate the terms for a reduced price or for only a portion of the property, which Ratliff refused.
On August 15, Hardison again told Ratliff he was unable to close on the farm because of market uncertainties, stating he was too 'chicken shit' to proceed with the deal.
On August 30, after Ratliff initiated cancellation proceedings, Hardison’s attorney sent a letter demanding the disclosure affidavit pursuant to § 33-422, stating Hardison would 'advise of his intentions' after receiving it.

Procedural Posture:

In September 2006, Ratliff (plaintiff) sued Hardison (defendant) in an Arizona trial court for breach of contract.
Hardison filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that A.R.S. § 33-422 applied, which would entitle him to the return of his earnest money.
Ratliff moved for partial summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, and Hardison filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ratliff, finding Hardison had repudiated the contract.
The trial court entered a final judgment on that issue under Rule 54(b) and stayed the determination of damages pending appeal.
Hardison (appellant) appealed the trial court’s order to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

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 party's attempt to renegotiate a contract on different terms, after unequivocally stating an intention not to perform, constitute an effective retraction of an anticipatory repudiation?

Opinions:

Majority - Espinosa, Judge

No. An attempt to renegotiate contract terms after a clear repudiation does not constitute an effective retraction. To be effective, a retraction of an anticipatory repudiation must be as clear and unequivocal as the repudiation itself, expressing an unconditional intent to perform under the original contract. Hardison's statements in late July that he would not buy the farm were a 'positive and unequivocal manifestation' of his intent not to perform, constituting an anticipatory repudiation. His subsequent communications, including the August 9 phone call and the August 30 letter from his attorney, were not clear and unequivocal retractions. Instead, they were attempts to modify the contract or conditional statements of future intent, not a commitment to honor the original agreement. Because Hardison breached the contract first through repudiation, he extinguished any duty Ratliff may have had to provide a disclosure affidavit under § 33-422, as a repudiating party is not entitled to demand performance from the innocent party.

Analysis:

This decision formally adopts the 'clear and unequivocal' standard for the retraction of an anticipatory repudiation in Arizona, aligning it with other jurisdictions and the standard for the repudiation itself. The ruling clarifies that mere expressions of continued interest or attempts to renegotiate are legally insufficient to nullify a prior breach. It establishes that a repudiating party forfeits the right to enforce conditions precedent or other contractual duties of the non-breaching party, preventing the breaching party from using a technicality to escape liability after causing the contract's failure.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ratliff v. Hardison (2008)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"