Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Contracts Keyed to Marshall

View this case in different Casebooks

Contracts Keyed to Calamari Contracts Keyed to Farnsworth Contracts Keyed to Murphy Contracts Keyed to Kunz Contracts Keyed to Burton Contracts Keyed to Epstein Contracts Keyed to Whaley Contracts Keyed to Summers

Hochster v. De La Tour

Citation:

118 Eng. Rep. 922 (1853)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

The parties dispute over the question whether, if there be an agreement between A. and B., whereby B. engages to employ A. on and from a future day for a given period of time, to travel with him into a foreign country as a courier, and to start with him in that capacity on that day, A. being to receive a monthly salary during the continuance of such service, B. may, before the day, refuse to perform the agreement and break and renounce it, so as to entitle A. before the day to commence an action against B. to recover damages for breach of the agreement.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - Assuming a jurisdiction did not recognize anticipatory breach as actionable prior to the date of performance, which of the following doctrines would most likely be implicated to reach a comparable outcome under equity or common law adaptation?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Injurious reliance, permitting restitution where detrimental position is shown despite lack of breach.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because injurious reliance applies in promissory estoppel, not post-contract repudiation.

(B) Declaratory judgment, allowing a party to preemptively seek confirmation of rights in light of repudiation.

Correct! Declaratory judgment allows courts to confirm rights and obligations before a cause of action for damages fully accrues, serving as an equitable workaround in jurisdictions rejecting anticipatory breach.

(C) Constructive condition precedent, enabling suspension of duties without terminating the contract.

Incorrect. Misunderstands conditions precedent, which delay performance rather than resolve repudiation.

(D) Impossibility of performance, discharging both parties due to frustration caused by the repudiation.

Incorrect. Misapplies impossibility, which excuses performance, not enforces early breach claims.

Q.2 - How does Hochster v. De La Tour complicate the classical bilateral contract paradigm, particularly when viewed through the lens of executory obligations and mutual dependency of performance?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) It fractures the expectation interest by permitting damages prior to any counter-performance being due.

Correct! By permitting damages before performance was due, the decision disrupts the executory balance that defines bilateral contracts, allowing one party to claim loss absent their own performance.

(B) It confirms mutuality by emphasizing symmetrical enforceability of executory contracts.

Incorrect. This is incorrect because the case dismantles, not affirms, synchronized mutuality.

(C) It reinforces classical notions of offer and acceptance by narrowing the temporal window of breach.

Incorrect. This is wrong; it doesn’t touch on offer/acceptance mechanics.

(D) It denies enforcement of contracts unless both parties provide adequate assurance before performance begins.

Incorrect. Misstates the holding—there was no requirement of pre-performance assurance.

Q.3 - In what way would the holding in Hochster v. De La Tour likely be limited under a strict textualist reading of the contract terms, assuming no express repudiation clause exists?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The repudiation would be treated as a waiver, necessitating acceptance by the innocent party to become operative.

Incorrect. Incorrectly treats repudiation as waiver, which is generally voluntary and doesn’t trigger claims.

(B) The anticipatory breach would be actionable only upon actual damages accruing on the date of performance.

Incorrect. Fails because actual damages need not accrue if repudiation is clear.

(C) The repudiation would be interpreted as an invitation to renegotiate, not a legal wrong.

Incorrect. Mischaracterizes repudiation’s legal force—it's not merely a negotiation tactic.

(D) The claim would be barred until the express conditions for performance were legally breached.

Correct! Under strict textualism, absent an express repudiation clause, a court might insist that only actual breach of a performance obligation triggers liability, rendering early claims premature.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Hochster v. De La Tour

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Hochster v. De La Tour

6m 19s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Refresher Course

Conditions

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Hochster v. De La Tour