increasing rent during the trial period was “so at odds” with the contract as to rise to the level of a “distinct, unequivocal and absolute refusal to perform” according to its terms. A party’s refusal to perform its obligations except upon terms that go beyond the original contract may, under certain circumstances, amount to a repudiation of the contract. As Professor Corbin observed in his treatise: “If one party to a contract, either wilfully or by mistake, demands of the other a performance to which he has no right under the contract and states definitely that, unless his demand is complied with, he will not render his promised performance, an anticipatory breach has been committed.” Corbin, supra, § 973, at 910; see also Placid Oil Co. v. Humphrey, 244 F.2d 184, 188 (5th Cir.1957) (<HOLDING>); Restatement, supra, § 250 cmt. b (Noting that
holding repudiation where defendant refused to perform unless plaintiffs fulfilled new condition not required by contract holding that right to payment does not accrue until condition precedent has been fulfilled holding that the montreal convention was not applicable to plaintiffs claims because based on plaintiffs allegations it clearly appears that through its employees continental refused to perform the contract holding that an insureds compliance with a condition precedent is not tested by the presence or absence of prejudice to the insurer but only by whether the condition has been fulfilled by the insured under all the circumstances holding that a condition subsequent presupposes an existing obligation that is to be defeated or forfeited if the condition is not fulfilled