covered by the contract, he would have been arguing that he should be reimbursed the $500 and another $500 in accordance with the offer. 95. I therefore conclude that the Defendants cannot resist the claim on the grounds of repudiatory breach of contract. Conclusion on liability 96. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the Defendants are in breach of the contract by directing Dr. Surner to pay them the proceeds of the BADV compensation claim, subject only to deducting his fees and expenses. The Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, to account to the Claimant for the expenses and fees he has paid, or is liable to pay, to Mr. Chudson relating to the latter’s researches in connection with the BADV and JCC claims and any other similar claims for compensation as a result of the seizure by the Nazis of Posener property. They are also liable to account for 30% of the net compensation moneys after deducting these fees and expenses and Dr. Surner’s fees. 97. There was also an issue about whether the Claimant could recover for his work and expenses. By Clause 9 of the Contract, in the event that the Defendants are in breach of their obligations, including their obligation not to seek direct payment of any Awards for claims to the Posenor Property and fail to reimburse the Claimant in full for his expenses and percentage, they agree to indemnify him for all losses, costs and expenses, including legal fees relating to or arising out of the breach. 98. Judge van Gestel’s opinion was that it is standard in Massachusetts that costs of litigation are borne by each party and attorney fees are not usually included in damages awards. Clause 9 of the Contract applies but does not entitle the Claimant to recover the reasonable value of his legal services, only the costs and expenses that he actually incurs. The Claimant asked a part 35 question about this, and his response was that where there is a contractual provision allowing the recovery of attorney’s legal services a court may examine the amount of those services to determine whether they are reasonable. This would include the nature and extent of the services and the hourly rate, if that is the basis of the charges. There can also be a contingency arrangement. 99. In the light of this opinion, the Claimant is entitled to an indemnity for the costs and disbursements that he had actually incurred as a result of having to take steps to enforce the agreement against the Defendants, but may not recover under Clause 9 for the time that he has personally spent. This would have to be recovered by an assessment of the costs of the actual proceedings (on the usual basis for assessing costs of a litigant in person). 100. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to recover the following damages: i) a sum to represent the expenses that he has paid to Mr. Chudson or is liable to pay him; ii) 30% of the net compensation received from the BADV, after discounting Dr. Surner’s fees and the sum under (a);