a “guaranteed minimum” for royalties rather than sufficient consideration to preclude plaintiff from recovering for lost profits under the contract. Id. at 112. The District Court concluded that these factors permitted the jury to draw the inference that the parties expected Morson to exercise reasonable diligence to operate a Palazzetti store for ten years. Id. The District Court also quoted the jury instructions, which laid out that the jury was to find that the defendants anticipatorily repudiated or that plaintiffs breached. The jury found that defendants breached or repudiated, a result that allows plaintiffs to claim damages for total breach. See, e.g., Norcon Power Partners, L.P. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 458, 462-63, 682 N.Y.S.2d 664, 667, 705 N.E.2d 656 (1998) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the District Court that the
holding that party may not recover damages for breach of contract where its own bad faith caused the other partys breach holding that future benefits are available upon a finding of bad faith because repudiation is a legal conclusion which the trial court reaches after the fact finder makes its determinations about whether there was a breach and whether the breach was in bad faith holding that anticipatory repudiation permits the other party to claim damages for total breach holding that repudiation alone gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach holding party in breach could not maintain suit for breach of contract