Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
National Farmers Organization v. Bartlett & Co., Grain
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
560 F.2d 1350 (1977)
A contract breach typically occurs after one party fails to keep its part of the bargain.
However, a breach can also occur before performance is due if one party signals an intention not to perform.
This is known as anticipatory repudiation. And in National Farmers Organization versus Bartlett and Company Grain, the eighth circuit considered what type of statement constitutes an anticipatory repudiation.
National Farmers Organization entered a series of forty five contracts to sell grain to Bartlett and Company Grain. Both parties fully performed under the first thirty one contracts.
However, starting with the thirty second contract, National began delivering late and incomplete shipments. In response, Bartlett began withholding a substantial portion of the payments due to National as protection against realized or potential loss caused by National's failure to perform under the remaining contracts.
About a month later with eight contracts still due to be performed, National informed Bartlett that it would cease delivery on all the remaining contracts until Bartlett substantially paid for the prior deliveries.
Bartlett treated this communication as an anticipatory repudiation and proceeded to settle its account with National.
Bartlett calculated the amount it owed to National for the previous six partial deliveries and then set off this figure by the amount of damages caused by National's breach of these contracts and its anticipatory repudiation of the remaining eight.
National objected to the set off and brought Sue to recover the alleged balance due.
Bartlett responded that it was permitted to withhold damages related to National's anticipatory repudiation.
National, however, asserted that its communication to Bartlett didn't constitute an anticipatory repudiation.
The district court disagreed and found in favor of Bartlett.
National appealed to the eighth circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/national-farmers-organization-v-bartlett-co-grain
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/national-farmers-organization-v-bartlett-co-grain
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
National Farmers Organization v. Bartlett & Co., Grain
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
560 F.2d 1350 (1977)
A contract breach typically occurs after one party fails to keep its part of the bargain.
However, a breach can also occur before performance is due if one party signals an intention not to perform.
This is known as anticipatory repudiation. And in National Farmers Organization versus Bartlett and Company Grain, the eighth circuit considered what type of statement constitutes an anticipatory repudiation.
National Farmers Organization entered a series of forty five contracts to sell grain to Bartlett and Company Grain. Both parties fully performed under the first thirty one contracts.
However, starting with the thirty second contract, National began delivering late and incomplete shipments. In response, Bartlett began withholding a substantial portion of the payments due to National as protection against realized or potential loss caused by National's failure to perform under the remaining contracts.
About a month later with eight contracts still due to be performed, National informed Bartlett that it would cease delivery on all the remaining contracts until Bartlett substantially paid for the prior deliveries.
Bartlett treated this communication as an anticipatory repudiation and proceeded to settle its account with National.
Bartlett calculated the amount it owed to National for the previous six partial deliveries and then set off this figure by the amount of damages caused by National's breach of these contracts and its anticipatory repudiation of the remaining eight.
National objected to the set off and brought Sue to recover the alleged balance due.
Bartlett responded that it was permitted to withhold damages related to National's anticipatory repudiation.
National, however, asserted that its communication to Bartlett didn't constitute an anticipatory repudiation.
The district court disagreed and found in favor of Bartlett.
National appealed to the eighth circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/national-farmers-organization-v-bartlett-co-grain
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/national-farmers-organization-v-bartlett-co-grain
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
