“Engineering Information The provision of the Engineering Information does not and will not in any way limit the obligations of Seller to provide Equipment that fully complies with the Specifications set out herein. Seller agrees that it will be solely responsible for the design, manufacture and performance of the Equipment based upon the data supplied by McCain Fluids (GB) Limited within the attached Performance Specification (specifically relating to biogas composition, volumes/flows, supply pressures and temperatures.”
“19. Indemnification 19.1 Subject to paragraph 19.2 below, Seller will indemnify and hold McCain and its Directors, Officers, Employees and Agents harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages and expenses whatsoever (in no event however will Seller be responsible for indirect, special, incidental and consequential damages) arising out of any breach by Seller of any commitment or other obligation contained in this Agreement or in any document delivered pursuant hereto or in connection herewith or out of any inaccuracy or misrepresentation of [sic] any representation or warranty made by Seller herein or in any such other document, or out of any actual or alleged injury to persons or property due to the acts or omissions of Seller and those for whom in law it is responsible, whether on the premises of McCain or otherwise.”
“1.1 This Specification is for a scrubber to remove hydrogen sulphide (H 2S) from biogas. The biogas will subsequently be used in a CHP engine to generate electricity. 1.2 The biogas is generated from potato waste in a covered anaerobic lagoon (CAL) and evacuated from it by blowers which distribute to the CHP engine, boilers or to a flare. 1.3 The scrubber will be situated in the pipework between the CAL and the blowers which are existing and therefore define the scrubber operating conditions.”
“I have some answers to your questions. Gas Pressure The booster blow within our system should not effect how you draw the biogas off of the lagoons. They can continue to control their air extraction blowers from the pressure under the cover so that when you need to draw the biogas it will do so. When the pressure indicates that it does not use biogas, then when you shut down the extraction blower, our booster blower will re-circulate around itself, so that the current draw on the mixer/agitator remains constant. If you are more comfortable with having the gas purification after the extraction blower, then that will be OK also but since the gas pressure here would be 180-240 mbarg then we would need to use a valve off to keep the two gases separate rather than a natural water seal.”
“I would also like to again stress that the BgPur system is a very robust system, and is not affected by any change or gas composition or temperature. It also can cope with any changes to the incoming flow rates.”
“With regard to the questions on the excess capacity in the proposed BgPur System, I now have some answers. The design gas flow rate for the contactor is 560m 3/hr, the unit can also cope with an extra 10% gas flow on a short term basis (30 mins). With regard to the potential increase in H 2S concentration, the Sulphur Removal Contractor (SRC) is designed to remove 4Kg per hour of Sulphur which equates to 96Kg per day. The 4,000ppmv of H 2S stated in your enquiry will produce 54Kg of Sulphur per day. So that the BgPur a unit will be able to cope with an H 2S content of 7,000 ppmv with no loss of performance (less than 40ppmv of H 2S in the outlet).”
“As a result of the communications that I had with Eco-Tec in early November 2007, I consider that the BgPur System was the most flexible and robust option for McCain’s intended application. This persuaded me that the BgPur System was the best solution available to McCain and I understood that it could be installed at site within an acceptable timeframe.”
“to take away a right to rely on misrepresentations” and that “clear words are needed”
“The tank lid and tank lip are grossly undersized. This is a pressure vessel. The problem is just piss-poor engineering. See 1 !!!! I can live with this. BS in a real sense of the expression but you have to build to local standards. I think we need to look at the real problem not a quick fix. (I think the real problem is with the liquid level in the tank.) See See 5 Just plan (sic) bad piss poor Engineering. See above.”
“The commissioning process was never completed, primarily because it proved impossible to maintain a steady sustained period of operation. Difficulties were encountered with excessive foaming, instability in the air contactor, and rapid degradation of the chelate chemistry.”
“Had the Claimant purchased the comparable system rather than the Equipment from the Defendant, it would have incurred the full cost of the system from Treatment Systems Limited (£389,750 ). Therefore, I consider the only additional costs incurred by the Claimant are the costs expended on the allegedly faulty equipment. As such, my calculation for this category reflects the purchase price of the Defendant’s system£224,282 .”
“... Seller will indemnify and hold McCain and its directors, officers, employees and agents harmless from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages and expenses whatsoever (in no event however will Seller be responsible for indirect, special, incidental and consequential damages) arising out of any breach by Seller of any commitment or other obligation contained in this Agreement or in any document delivered pursuant hereto or in connection herewith or out of any inaccuracy or misrepresentation of (sic) any representation or warranty made by Seller herein or in any such other document, or out of any actual or alleged injury to persons or property due to the acts or omissions of Seller and those for whom in law it is responsible, whether on the premises of McCain or otherwise.”
“Where two parties which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either as arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract as the probable breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made were communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under the special circumstances so known and communicated. On the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the person breaching the contract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such breach of contract”
“90. ... The direct and natural result of the destruction of the plant was that Deepak was left without a methanol plant, reconstruction of which would cost money and take time, losing for Deepak any methanol production in the meantime. Wasted overheads incurred during the reconstruction of the plant, as well as profits lost during that period are no more remote as losses than the cost of reconstruction.”