ARTICLE
14 October 2025

Keep Calm And Carry On: Contractual Performance After A Wrongful Repudiation

AO
A&O Shearman

Contributor

A&O Shearman was formed in 2024 via the merger of two historic firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. With nearly 4,000 lawyers globally, we are equally fluent in English law, U.S. law and the laws of the world’s most dynamic markets. This combination creates a new kind of law firm, one built to achieve unparalleled outcomes for our clients on their most complex, multijurisdictional matters – everywhere in the world. A firm that advises at the forefront of the forces changing the current of global business and that is unrivalled in its global strength. Our clients benefit from the collective experience of teams who work with many of the world’s most influential companies and institutions, and have a history of precedent-setting innovations. Together our lawyers advise more than a third of NYSE-listed businesses, a fifth of the NASDAQ and a notable proportion of the London Stock Exchange, the Euronext, Euronext Paris and the Tokyo and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.
The Court of Appeal's decision in Advanced Multi-Technology v Uniserve is a reminder that if you "repudiate" a contract, for example by saying you are not going to perform...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law
Jason Rix’s articles from A&O Shearman are most popular:
  • with readers working within the Media & Information and Law Firm industries
A&O Shearman are most popular:
  • within Consumer Protection, Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring and Insurance topic(s)

The Court of Appeal's decision in Advanced Multi-Technology v Uniserve is a reminder that if you "repudiate" a contract, for example by saying you are not going to perform, the contract remains in place unless the other side accepts that repudiation.

Customer says contract over

The dispute arose from a Covid-era agreement for the supply of 80 million medical-grade face masks. While obligations were still outstanding, the customer, Uniserve, asserted that the contract was over. Up to that point, deliveries had been made in full and on time. The supplier, Hitex, continued production but did not meet the contractual quotas. The supplier complained that the customer was not paying for the masks. The customer reiterated that the contract had ended. The supplier claimed damages for non-payment.

Repudiation not accepted

The Court of Appeal agreed that the customer had repudiated the contract when it asserted that it was over. However, it held, the supplier had not sufficiently communicated acceptance of that repudiation. A production slowdown, without more, was not enough to convey acceptance to the customer. Because the supplier did not accept the repudiation, the contract remained alive, and the supplier was obliged to meet the agreed quotas. The supplier's failure to do so constituted a breach that entitled the customer to terminate. The supplier's damages claim was therefore dismissed.

Judgment: Advanced Multi-Technology v Uniserve

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More