ii) He accepted that advice given in relation to the subject matter of this case was not within the competence of the Claimant, as it involved German law and a claim in Germany; iii) He accepted that no legal advice was in fact given by the Claimant. 70. This was a case where the Claimant and Defendants were related and all had a potential interest in making claims in Germany to compensation for assets seized by the Nazis from their common forebears. The Claimant happened to be a lawyer but both fully appreciated that there was a common benefit in co-operating in relation to the claims. The First Defendant is a competent businessman whose own evidence was that he knew more about the BADV than anyone else in the case. He well knew what the contract meant and what the parties were negotiating about. 71. Therefore, the Code 1.18 defence fails. Repudiatory Breach 72. The Defendant’s case is that the Claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract in refusing to fund Mr. Chudson’s attendance on the BADV in Berlin by providing $500 in mid-July 2015. The Claimant says that this was not a repudiatory breach, but if anything, a variation of the contract whereby the Defendants paid $500 to Mr. Chudson in return for the Claimant agreeing to reimburse that sum (plus a further $1,000 out of any award moneys. 73. Judge van Gestel’s opinion was sought on a number of points in relation to this issue. His views were as follows: i) How does the court determine what is a repudiatory breach? ii) He quoted an extract from Burlington Landmark Associates v RHIHoldings Inc 27F. Supp. 2d 95,99, which shows that mere expression of doubt by the obligor as to his willingness or ability to perform is not enough to constitute repudiation. There must be language that is sufficiently positive to be reasonably interpreted to mean that the party will not or cannot perform the contract. He explained that the court must determine, from the evidence, whether some statement made by a party that the party will commit a breach is required. That statement or act must be either with respect to the entire performance that was promised or with respect to so material a part as to go to the essence of the contract. iii) The court may determine that a breach is not material if the other party suffers no loss or damage as a result of the breach. iv) Where there is a repudiatory breach, and it is accepted by the other party, then unless the parties agree in writing otherwise, their rights and obligations accumulated up to the breach remain extant. v) If there is a repudiatory breach, the contract is not automatically determined. It may be affirmed by acts of the party claiming repudiation, although he doubted whether it could be implied by conduct because of Clauses 10 and 11 of the contract. In his response to the Claimant’s part 35 request, Judge van