Under Wild Skies v. NRA

Holding

In an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial courts’ refusal to give the plaintiff’s proffered jury instruction on the doctrine of adequate assurance in a case involving claims of breach of contract and anticipatory breach, the trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing the instruction. The proffered instruction, based on Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 251, expands the definition of repudiation beyond what is currently recognized in Virginia law, and was thus not an accurate statement of Virginia law regarding repudiation. As the Court of Appeals correctly recognized, that the doctrine of anticipatory repudiation is part of the law of contracts in Virginia, but the doctrine of adequate assurance is a modern innovation by the American Law Institute, and not a common law doctrine. The decision to adopt a new doctrine applicable to all contractual disputes, such as the one at issue here, is a policy decision that is more appropriately left to the legislature. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.