Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Diamos v. Hirsch, 372 P.2d 76.

31 citing documents.

Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Chandler v. Roosevelt Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Anticipatory repudiation requires “a positive and unequivocal manifestation on the part of the party allegedly repudiating that he will not render the promised performance when the time fixed for it in the contract arrives.”
Le Canard v. Thorpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Le Canard v. Thorpe Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Spencer v. Asher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Spencer v. Asher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶11 To establish anticipatory repudiation, “there must be a positive and unequivocal manifestation on the part of the party allegedly repudiating that he will not render the promised performance when the time fixed for it in the contract arrives.”
Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Ratliff v. Hardison 199 P.3d 696 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Healey v. Coury 783 P.2d 795 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1989
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Holt v. Utica Mutual Insurance 759 P.2d 623 Ariz. 1988
Oldenburger v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 765 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Oldenburger v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 765 P.2d 531 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
Kammert Bros. Enterprises
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
Snow v. Western Savings & Loan Ass'n 730 P.2d 204 Ariz. 1987
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
United California Bank v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America 681 P.2d 390 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
see generally 4 Corbin on Contracts § 973 (1951); 11 Williston on Contracts § 1323 (3d ed. 1968).
Davis v. Tucson Arizona Boys Choir Society 669 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Davis v. Tucson Arizona Boys Choir Society 669 P.2d 1005 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
American Continental Life Insurance v. Ranier Construction Co. 607 P.2d 372 Ariz. 1980
Wippman v. Rowe 540 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
Wippman v. Rowe 540 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
The Arizona courts follow the doctrine of mutual rescission and often refer to it as “abandonment.” See
McMahon v. Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 496 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
McMahon v. Fiberglass Fabricators, Inc. 496 P.2d 616 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Vinnell Corp. v. State ex rel. Skousen 490 P.2d 21 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1971
Kleeb v. Burns 429 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
Kleeb v. Burns 429 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1967
our Supreme Court “ * * * recognized that an action may be maintained for breach of contract based upon the anticipatory repudiation by one of the parties to the contract.
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967
Kammert Bros. Enterprises, Inc. v. Tanque Verde Plaza Co. 428 P.2d 678 Ariz. 1967

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by