with any proposed retraction by adjusting the net profits for the rental increase at the end of the trial period. Finally, by terminating Gilmore and refusing to go forward with the sale unless Gilmore paid the Duderstadts an extra $200,000, the Duderstadts apparently sought to impose a new condition not in accord with the original contract, thereby defeating any attempted retraction. See Pichignau, 70 Cal.Rptr. at 149. Thus, because the evidence does not conclusively establish a retraction by the Duderstadts, we hold that Gilmore presented sufficient evidence entitling the jury to consider the issue of anticipatory repudiation. If, upon retrial, anticipatory repudiation is proven, Gilmore would be entitled to his compensatory damages for total breach. See Restatement, supra, § 253(1) (<HOLDING>). {21} Defendants argue that the trial court
holding that the failure to act in good faith  does not amount to an independent tort the breach of the implied duty under the ucc gives rise only to a cause of action for breach of contract holding that repudiation alone gives rise to a claim for damages for total breach holding that a licensees material breach implicitly gives rise to a licensors right to terminate holding that anticipatory repudiation permits the other party to claim damages for total breach holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action