Alaska Pacific Trading Co. v. Eagon Forest Products, Inc.

Seller sued the buyer for breach after the buyer refused to accept a shipment of logs. Summary judgment for the buyer; seller appealed.

The market for logs collapsed after the contract was signed. Neither party tendered or demanded performance by the shipment date, and correspondence expressed continuing hope of a resolution.

Whether the buyer's expressions of concern and inaction amount to an anticipatory repudiation.

Anticipatory repudiation requires a positive, unequivocal statement or voluntary act that the party will not or cannot substantially perform. Doubt or a request to renegotiate is insufficient.

No. There was no repudiation, and the contract was discharged by mutual inaction.

Both parties allowed the shipment date to pass without tender. Market changes do not excuse or accuse; they simply reveal who made the better bargain.

Anticipatory repudiation; UCC § 2-610; adequate assurances under § 2-609.

Affirmed.

No separate opinions were filed.

Pitfall: the seller's remedy was to demand adequate assurances under § 2-609, not to treat worry as repudiation.

Cited for the strict 'positive and unequivocal' standard for repudiation under the UCC.

Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 El. & Bl. 678 (1853).