claims” and stating that they needed to analyse his costs attributable to the Posener claims. Mr. Chudson then sent the First Defendant a list of invoices “to be billed by me to cousin Tony and which are to be reimbursed (which is in accordance with the agreement between you and him)”. 90. On 22nd November 2015, the First Defendant made it quite clear to Mr. Chudson, that he did not consider that he was under any liability to pay him direct, and that his retainer was solely with the Claimant. It is quite clear that the First Defendant continued to regard the Claimant as being solely responsible for Mr. Chudson’s remuneration and expenses. 91. I therefore turn to the issues. It is difficult to categorise the Claimant’s email of 17 th July 2015 as anything other than a repudiatory breach of contract. While Mr. Oliver argued that it was an offer to vary the contract, my judgment is that it is a flat refusal by the Claimant to provide any more funds to Mr. Chudson, in the knowledge that the visit to Berlin was probably the last step required in the claim. The provision of funds was the main obligation on the part of the Claimant. 92. As regards the Defendants’ claim that in refusing to settle Mr. Chudson’s general bill there was a further breach of contract, I disagree. There was no refusal by the Claimant to payment of Mr. Chudson’s fees and expenses. How the Claimant dealt with resolving these with Mr. Chudson was a matter for them. The issue was as to the amount and how they should be apportioned between work done for the Claimant and under the contract and any delay in paying Mr. Chudson had no impact on the Defendants and was as a result of discussions between Mr. Chudson and the Claimant about the amount and Mr. Chudson’s delays in producing his final bill. The Defendants have not put forward any particulars of this alleged breach and there is no evidence advanced that there was any breach prior to 1 st December 2015 or indeed the 23rd December 2015 – the date of the BADV award. 93. If there is a repudiatory breach then I am satisfied that it has been affirmed prior to any attempt by the Defendants to give notice accepting the breach as putting an end to their obligations under the contract. Although in breach in his email of 17 th July 2015, the Claimant made an offer to the Defendants that if they paid Mr. Chudson $500 then, if the Clause 8 trigger operates, then he would reimburse them the $500 and another $500 on top. Following that email, as set out above, the First Defendant responded by saying that he would make the payment and “let’s get busy”. He then asked the Claimant to provide further funds to Mr. Chudson, which was done, and until the email on 1st December 2017 not only took no steps to inform the Claimant that he considered that he was no longer obliged under the contract, he behaved to all intents as if the contract was still on foot and that he fully expected the reimbursement of the expenses to go ahead out of the proceeds of the compensation moneys in due course. 94. In my judgment, it is quite clear that the Defendants have, by the First Defendant’s emails and significant delay in accepting the breach, affirmed the contract and that for reasons given earlier, as a matter of Massachusetts law, the provisions of Clauses 10 and 11 do not prevent this consequence. I am also satisfied that there was also a new agreement, to treat the original contract on foot, when the First Defendant responded to the Claimant’s offer and that if he hadn’t taken the line that BADV claims were not