A plaintiff claiming loss of opportunity to sell a contract must prove on the balance of probabilities that they would in fact have pursued that course of action. Where the evidence establishes the plaintiff would have taken a different course (here, nominating a specific entity as purchaser), the claimed loss of opportunity fails at the threshold. Additionally, evidence of what a third party would have paid for a contract must address the true terms of that contract; evidence of willingness to pay based on a misunderstanding of the contract's terms does not establish the claimed loss.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.