A contractual termination clause may impose a requirement first to give the other party notice to remedy the breach if it can be remedied.
Will this apply to a contractual termination clause where a party terminated at common law following the other party’s repudiatory breach of contract?
In Vinergy International (PVT) Limited v Richmond Mercantile Limited FZC  the High Court) said clause 17 provided 6 contractual rights to terminate, including on insolvency. So it was to be inferred that the 20 day notice requirement only applied to the specific right to terminate under clause 17.1.1 (a breach which could be remedied) and not to any other express rights to terminate under clause 17, nor to the common law right to accept a repudiatory breach of contract as ending the contract.
However the case turned on the interpretation of the clause. Other clauses may be interpreted differently so it would be dangerous to think the notice procedures can be bypassed in every case involving a repudiatory breach of contract.
This blog has been posted out of general interest. It does not replace the need to get bespoke legal advice in individual cases.