In loss of commercial opportunity cases, evidence of a plaintiff's capacity to fulfil orders at a particular level, the competence of its management, and the reasonableness of its business plans does not constitute probative evidence of the likelihood that a counterparty would have placed orders at that level. The prospect of achieving particular production levels must be supported by evidence going to the counterparty's actual requirements and intentions, not merely the plaintiff's ability to meet them. Where a plaintiff acting reasonably acquires replacement property using its own funds (including insurance proceeds) and later sells that property, the defendant is not entitled to a credit for the sale proceeds where the damages were assessed on a loss of profits basis rather than an enterprise value basis.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.