## Facts

- A buyer and sellers entered a written executory contract for the sale of 50,000 pairs of bicycle pedals, to be delivered and paid for in scheduled installments.
- The sellers delivered 2,608 pairs and then refused to deliver any additional pedals, repudiating further performance.
- By March 1, 1899, the delivery schedule called for 19,000 pairs to have been delivered, but only 2,608 had been delivered.
- In March 1899, the buyer sued for breach and recovered a judgment for damages based on the sellers’ failure to deliver the installments due up to that time.
- In February 1900, the buyer filed a second action seeking damages for the remaining pedals due for delivery after March 1, 1899.
- The trial court entered judgment for the sellers on the ground that the first judgment barred the second action; the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, after a seller’s repudiation of an installment sales contract, a buyer who previously sued and obtained judgment may maintain a later action for damages for installments that would have come due after the first suit.
2. Whether the sellers’ refusal to continue deliveries constituted a single total breach requiring recovery of all damages in one action, thereby barring claim-splitting.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed judgment for the sellers.
- The court treated the sellers’ refusal to make further deliveries as a repudiation of the entire contract.
- Because the buyer sued after the repudiation and obtained a judgment on the contract, the buyer was required to seek all damages resulting from that total breach in the first action.
- The first judgment merged the cause of action and barred the second suit for additional damages arising from the same repudiation.

## Legal Principles

- When a party repudiates an executory contract calling for future performance in installments, the nonrepudiating party may elect to treat the repudiation as a total breach and sue immediately for all damages caused by the breach.
- If the nonrepudiating party elects to sue on the total breach and reduces the claim to judgment, the party cannot later sue for additional damages stemming from the same repudiation.
- A single breach giving rise to a single cause of action cannot be split into successive actions; the prior judgment bars later suits under principles of merger and res judicata.

## Conclusion

A buyer who elected to sue after a seller’s total repudiation of an installment contract and obtained a judgment could not later bring a second action for damages tied to later-due installments, because all damages from the repudiation had to be recovered in the first action and the judgment barred further litigation on the same breach.


Pakas v. Hollingshead, 184 N.Y. 211, 77 N.E. 40 (1906)