You are here: / / Anticipatory Repudiation Cause of Action Stated;Four-Year UCC Statute of...
,

Anticipatory Repudiation Cause of Action Stated;Four-Year UCC Statute of Limitations Applied

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Leventhal, the Second Department determined that the plaintiff had pled a valid “anticipatory repudiation” cause of action and that the four-year UCC statute of limitations applied.  The case concerned the return (for a refund) of drugs when the expiration date is close or has passed.  The plaintiff brought the action when it learned the refund would not be offered in full. Regarding the anticipatory repudiation and statute of limitations issues, Justice Leventhal wrote:

Here, the complaint alleges that, when the defendants refused to accept the plaintiff’s attempt to return the unsold merchandise, the defendants anticipatorily repudiated their respective return policies by unambiguously stating that they would not accept the returns. The complaint asserts that the defendants’ anticipatory repudiation occurred before the plaintiff tendered the unsold merchandise to the defendants and before the plaintiff attempted to return the merchandise to the manufacturer in accordance with standard industry practice. When a party repudiates a contract prior to the time designated for performance and before all of the consideration has been fulfilled, the nonrepudiating party can seek to recover damages …. * * *

The general rule applicable to actions to recover damages for breach of contract is that a six-year statute of limitations begins to run when a contract is breached or when one party fails to perform a contractual obligation …. However, UCC 2-725(1) provides that “[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale [of goods] must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued” (see CPLR 203[a]). QK Healthcare, Inc v InSource, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 03312, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCE WOULD INCLUDE POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, ALTHOUGH HE WAS INFORMED THE SENTENCE PROMISE WAS CONDITIONED UPON NO FURTHER ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED TWICE BEFORE SENTENCING AND AN ENHANCED SENTENCE, INCLUDING POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION, WAS IMPOSED; PLEA WAS NOT VOLUNTARY; ERROR APPEALABLE DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
MARIJUANA AND GRAVITY-KNIFE CONVICTIONS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE THE “OFFENSES” HAVE BEEN DECRIMINALIZED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CASINO WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS DRINKING WITH THE MAN WHO ASSAULTED HER AFTER SHE LEFT THE CASINO DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF AFTER SHE LEFT THE PREMISES (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY DOWNWARD MODIFICATION OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT, NO SHOWING FATHER WAS NOT AT FAULT FOR LOSING THE JOB, BECAUSE FATHER DID NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, HIS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE ARGUMENT MUST BE BASED UPON EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Unlicensed Contractor Could Not Sue for Breach of Contract or Quantum Merui... Statute of Frauds Precluded Real Property-Related Action; Equitable Part Performance...