another $500 on 20th July 2015 and it is quite clear that the First Defendant considered that the Claimant was still obliged to make payments, which he did. 85. The Defendant’s pleaded case is the Claimant was in repudiatory breach of contract by refusing to pay Mr. Chudson’s fees and expenses of the Berlin trip. It is also alleged that he is in breach by failing to pay the remaining sums which Mr. Chudson says are due to him in the overall account. No particulars were pleaded and it has never been suggested or explained, either in submissions or in evidence, how the Claimant was in breach prior to 1st December 2015. This aspect of the pleading simply doesn’t get off the ground. In any case, the final account due to Mr. Chudson was not resolved, on the Claimant’s case which I accept and is borne out by the documents, until long after the award by the BADV (23 rd December 2015). No case about this was advanced by the Defendants. The Claimant cannot be in breach for failing to make a payment before Mr. Chudson had worked out what was due and presented an invoice. 86. In paragraph 47 in the Defence, it is pleaded that “as set out above” the Defendants accepted the repudiatory breach, but no particulars were given either there or anywhere else in the pleadings of anything that could be regarded as an acceptance. It was only in the course of final submissions that Mr. Darton submitted that the only acceptance relied on was an email dated 1st December 2015 from the First Defendant to the Claimant. This was not the case on acceptance put forward in Mr. Darton’s opening skeleton. In this email he states that he will now instruct Dr. Surner “to discount any involvement with you for breach of contract on 3 counts”. He does not state the 3 grounds, but describes the Claimant as a scammer who has deceived, falsified and colluded with other to give false statements, been unacceptably bullish and that the agreement does not include any and all claims for Posener inheritance for all time. The context of this was the First Defendant’s contention that he was not under any liability to pay for anything in respect of a BADV claim. 87. The Claimant pleaded in his reply that there was no repudiatory breach and, even if there was, the Defendants did not accept that the contract was repudiated, but affirmed the agreement by continuing to act in conformity with it. A further alternative case put forward in Mr. Oliver’s skeleton was that the events of July 2015 amounted to a variation of the Contract by email. 88. Apart from the payments by the Claimant after the alleged repudiatory breach, and referred to above – which the First Defendant disingenuously denied knowledge of despite requesting Mr. Chudson to ask the Claimant if he needed more money – the First Defendant was copied into emails between the Claimant and Mr. Chudson, including one dated 7th September 2015 asking the latter calculate his expenses to date. The First Defendant’s response made it quite clear that he was expecting the expenses to be dealt with as provided by the Contract. This email is a clear indication that he considered that the contract remained in place. 89. After his visit to Berlin, Mr. Chudson continued his involvement in the claim for compensation and copied his emails to the First Defendant. His emails also show that he was continuing to carry out his researches, visiting Wroclaw for instance on 12 th October 2015. By mid-November 2015 the First Defendant was asserting that the Contract did not cover the BADV claim, but was still emailing Mr. Chudson on 18 th November 2015 stating that his researches had “clearly had real effect on the Posener