District of Columbia Code
Part VII - Remedies
§ 28:2–720. Effect of “cancellation” or “rescission” on claims for antecedent breach

Unless the contrary intention clearly appears, expressions of “cancellation” or “rescission” of the contract or the like shall not be construed as a renunciation or discharge of any claim in damages for an antecedent breach.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 669, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1.)
1981 Ed., § 28:2-720.
1973 Ed., § 28:2-720.
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None. Purpose:
This section is designed to safeguard a person holding a right of action from any unintentional loss of rights by the ill-advised use of such terms as “cancellation”, “rescission”, or the like. Once a party’s rights have accrued they are not to be lightly impaired by concessions made in business decency and without intention to forego them. Therefore, unless the cancellation of a contract expressly declares that it is “without reservation of rights”, or the like, it cannot be considered to be a renunciation under this section.
Cross Reference:Section 1-107.
Definitional Cross References: “Cancellation”. Section 2-106.
“Contract”. Section 1-201.

Structure District of Columbia Code