7 Dec 2018
Master accepted plaintiff's evidence that defendant repudiated the contract, that plaintiff promptly mitigated by contracting with JTL on 3 October 2016 at a market price of US$645/ton, and awarded damages as the difference between US$645 and US$534 for 672 metric tons = US$74,592; interest and costs ordered as specified.
10 Mar 2011
The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence, rejected the Defendants' account and found no proven tri-party settlement or valid entitlement to retain the Plaintiff's funds; the Defendants unlawfully caused the bills of lading to be altered and sold the goods, rendering them liable for conversion and breach of contract; damages were assessed and awarded to the Plaintiff accordingly.
10 Mar 2011
The court preferred and accepted the plaintiff's evidence, found the defendants had caused the names on original bills of lading to be changed and sold the goods without plaintiff's consent, and the defendants failed to prove the asserted US$25,000 debt or existence of a binding tri‑party settlement; accordingly defendants were liable to pay the plaintiff specified sums, interest and costs.