Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, as in England, the courts when confronted with the task of determining the existence of an anticipatory breach usually apply an intention-based test. The party who allegedly commits an anticipatory breach must be shown to have objectively evinced an intention not to be boundby the contract. Accordingly, anticipatory breach is said to be distinguishable from “fundamental breach,” a type of breach defined by Diplock L.J. (as he then was) as having such a consequence of depriving the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit of the contract as to entitle that party to terminate the contract. An anticipatory breach does not necessarily produce such a consequence and, therefore, does not necessarily constitute a fundamental breach. On the other hand, anticipatory breach is also sometimes viewed as a variantonfundamental breach. According to this latter view, an anticipatory breach is always a fundamental breach, while a fundamental breach may be either an actual or anticipatory breach. Anticipatory breach is thus embraced by the concept of fundamental breach. In the most recent case of Spirent Communications of Ottawa Ltd. v. Quake Technologies (Canada) Inc., the Court of Appeal for Ontario explicitly endorsed the above latter view. The decision confirmed the inextricable tie between anticipatory breach and fundamental breach. It lent great support to the proposition, advanced in the context of English law, that an anticipatory breach invariably foreshadowed a prospective fundamental breach and a “test of fundamentality” was essential to its establishment. However, the decision failed to sever the orthodox intention-based test from the test of fundamentality, thereby creating potential problems for a future judicial determination of an anticipatory breach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".