Abstract

The minimum performance rule applies where the defendant who has repudiated his contract would have had a choice as to how to perform it. The rule requires that damages be assessed on the basis that the defendant would have chosen to perform in the least onerous manner. Two principal criticisms of the rule are made. The first is that the rule’s fundamental assumption, that minimum performance is all the claimant is entitled to, rests on a flawed understanding of what it means to have a choice as to how to perform a promise. The second is that the rule is wrongly applied to claims for consequential loss. Having shown that the rule has no remaining role, the conclusion reached is that it should be abandoned.