JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This appeal raises a short question. It is this. What are the remedies open to an innocent party where there is a breach of contract? One would have thought that this rather basic question had been answered by the courts of England at least by the mid 19th Century through the doctrine of repudiation. See, Philpot v. Evans [1839] 151 ER 200, 202; Ripley v. M'Clure [1849] 154 ER 1245, 1251. Where a promisor wrongfully repudiates a contract in its entirety, the promisee has a choice. He or she may elect to accept the repudiation, treat the contract as at an end and sue for damages. The rationale is that the primary obligation to perform the promise made is substituted with a secondary obligation to compensate the promisee for the breach. See, Moschi v. Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] AC 331. Alternatively, he or she may elect to reject the repudiation and treat the contract as subsisting. Whether the one or the other course was adopted by the promisee - the innocent party - is a fact that is to be inferred by the court from the objective facts, including the words and conduct of the parties. An election once made is irreversible. See, Sargent v. ASL Develop