Where one contracting party accepts the other party's repudiation should the former party's entitlement to substantial damages depend upon proof of its future ability to perform? The relevant case law is notoriously complex, and the question remains unsettled. This article identifies the reasons for this complexity and uncertainty and proposes a way forward. It is first established, consistently with the decision in Bunge v Nidera, that when the parties’ obligations are dependent or concurrent the innocent party's ability to perform in the post-termination period must be relevant to any damages assessment. Next, the critical question of which party should be allocated the burden of proving the innocent party's future ability (or inability) to perform is confronted. It is argued that, subject to two specified exceptions, considerations of both principle and practicality favour the law's adoption of a rebuttable presumption that the innocent party would have performed its remaining obligations.

中文翻译：

---

优先考虑证据而非猜测：解决合同损害赔偿中的预期无能力问题

如果一缔约方接受另一方的拒绝，前一方获得重大损害赔偿的权利是否应取决于其未来履约能力的证据？相关判例法非常复杂，而且这个问题仍然悬而未决。本文找出了这种复杂性和不确定性的原因，并提出了前进的方向。它首先成立，与邦吉诉尼德拉案的判决一致，当双方的义务相互依赖或同时存在时，无过错方在终止后期间履行义务的能力必须与任何损害评估相关。接下来面临的关键问题是，应由哪一方承担证明无过错方未来有能力（或无能力）履行义务的责任。有人认为，除了两个具体的例外情况外，原则和实用性的考虑都支持法律采用可反驳的推定，即无过错方将履行其剩余义务。