Common use of April 2013 Clause in Contracts

April 2013. 62 It follows from my findings above that, after Azimut sold the Azimut 100G #12, Cip was entitled to recover the €1m Deposit, for the basis upon which he had paid the €1m Deposit, viz, that Azimut would hold the two Azimut 100 yachts off the market for him until 15 May 2013 for him to choose between them, whereupon the €1m Deposit would become the initial down payment for the chosen yacht, had totally failed. Both ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ admitted this (see [56] above) in cross-examination, and I so find. 63 The defendant’s case is that, during the 8 May 2013 Meeting, Cip agreed with Grange and/or represented that the €1m Deposit should be paid to Azimut as a non-refundable deposit to reserve the Azimut 100L #15 and the Azimut 100G #15 (see [25(b)] above). The defendant relies on ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s evidence that he told Cip that the €1m Deposit would be non-refundable if Cip did not purchase either yacht, and that Cip acknowledged this position.77 76 Transcript, 13 April 2017, p 23. 77 ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s AEIC at paras 14 and 16. 64 I find that there was no such agreement or representation. 65 First, as the plaintiff emphasises,78 the defendant has not produced any documentary evidence of the alleged agreement or representation. In particular:

April 2013. 62 It follows from my findings above that, after Azimut ▇▇▇▇▇▇ sold the Azimut 100G #12, Cip was entitled to recover the €1m Deposit, for the basis upon which he had paid the €1m Deposit, viz, that Azimut ▇▇▇▇▇▇ would hold the two Azimut 100 yachts off the market for him until 15 May 2013 for him to choose between them, whereupon the €1m Deposit would become the initial down payment for the chosen yacht, had totally failed. Both ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇ admitted this (see [56] above) in cross-examination, and I so find. 63 The defendant’s case is that, during the 8 May 2013 Meeting, Cip agreed with Grange and/or represented that the €1m Deposit should be paid to Azimut as a non-refundable deposit to reserve the Azimut 100L #15 and the Azimut 100G #15 (see [25(b)] above). The defendant relies on ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s evidence that he told Cip that the €1m Deposit would be non-refundable if Cip did not purchase either yacht, and that Cip acknowledged this position.77 76 Transcript, 13 April 2017, p 23. 77 ▇▇▇▇▇▇’s AEIC at paras 14 and 16. 64 I find that there was no such agreement or representation. 65 First, as the plaintiff emphasises,78 the defendant has not produced any documentary evidence of the alleged agreement or representation. In particular: