Editing Breach of contract (section)

===Renunciatory breaches===
Conduct is renunciatory if it shows an intention to commit a repudiatory breach. The conduct would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the party does not intend to perform its future obligations when they fall due.<ref name=citati>{{cite news |title=Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation v Citati [1957] 2 QB 401}}</ref>

Showing an intention to perform a contract in a manner which is ''inconsistent'' with the terms of the contract also shows an intention not to perform the contract.<ref>{{cite news |title=Ross T Smyth & Co Ltd v T.D. Bailey, Son & Co [1940] 3 All ER 60}}</ref> Whether such conduct is so severe so as to amount to a renunciatory breached depends upon whether the threatened difference in performance is repudiatory. An intention to perform connotes a willingness to perform, but willingness in this context does not mean a desire to perform despite an inability to do so. To say "I would like to but I cannot" negatives intent just as much as "I will not".<ref name=citati /> Contracting parties must perform contracts in strict accordance with their terms: what was agreed in the first instance when the contract was formed. To do otherwise is therefore a breach of contract.

In the event of a renunciatory breach, the innocent party may:
* choose to accept the breach at once and to terminate the contract, without waiting for the due date of performance, or 
* wait for the time for performance of the contract. 
If the defaulting party does not perform when the time for performance arrives, the contract may be terminated. However, if the defaulting party performs, the right to terminate is lost forever.

Conduct comprising a breach for performance of contractual obligations that have fallen due may be insufficient to be a repudiation. However:
* Nevertheless, conduct may be a renunciation because it would lead the reasonable observer to conclude that there was an intention not to perform in the future, and 
* the past and threatened future breaches taken together would be repudiatory.

The reason for a defaulting party committing an actual breach is generally irrelevant to whether it constitutes a breach, or whether the breach is a repudiation (this is an incident of ''strict liability'' for the performance of contractual obligations). However, the reason may be highly relevant to what such breach would lead the reasonable observer to conclude about the defaulting party's intentions in relation to future performance and therefore to the issue of renunciation. Often, the question whether conduct is a renunciation falls to be judged by reference to the defaulting party's intention, which is objectively evinced by past breaches and other words and conduct.