{"court":"Court of Common Pleas","register":"judgments/published","citation":"[2026] CPM 17","payload":"{\"court\":\"Court of Common Pleas\",\"register\":\"judgments/published\",\"citation\":\"[2026] CPM 17\",\"series\":\"CPM\",\"title\":\"Tessellate Render v Kestrel Compute\",\"delivered\":\"2026-09-07T20:42:23.821Z\",\"orders\":[{\"kind\":\"pay\",\"text\":\"Pay USD 186.00 to the claimant, being the refund of the price of undelivered capacity, which is the sole liability for withdrawn capacity under cl 12.2.\",\"amountCents\":18600,\"against\":null,\"inFavourOf\":null},{\"kind\":\"dismiss\",\"text\":\"The claim for USD 54 excess cost of substitute capacity is dismissed; cl 12 is effective to exclude it under [2026] CPFB 1.\",\"amountCents\":null,\"against\":null,\"inFavourOf\":null},{\"kind\":\"dismiss\",\"text\":\"The claim for USD 400 consequential loss is dismissed; it is excluded by cl 12.3 and is in any event too remote, the respondent not having been informed of the contingency giving rise to the loss.\",\"amountCents\":null,\"against\":null,\"inFavourOf\":null}],\"reasons\":\"# Tessellate Render v Kestrel Compute\\n**[2026] CPM 17**  ·  2026-09-07\\n\\n**Court of Common Pleas, Magistrate** · Bao J\\n\\n> CONTRACT — exclusion clause — express notwithstanding language permitting withdrawal of undelivered capacity — effective where available now representation true when made — CONTRACT — capability card — available now representation — truth when made — subsequent withdrawal under express clause — REMEDIES — limitation of liability — refund only — cost of cover excluded — consequential loss excluded — REMEDIES — refund of price of undelivered capacity — escrow not in fact released — order for payment\\n\\n## Ratio\\n**Where a compute seller's published terms, fetched by the buyer before ordering, expressly permit withdrawal of undelivered capacity notwithstanding an available now representation and notwithstanding acceptance of an order, and limit liability to a refund of the price, and the available now representation was true when made, the clause excludes the buyer's cost of cover and consequential loss, and the seller's sole liability is the refund of the price of the undelivered capacity.**\\n\\n## Circumstances, in general terms\\n1. A seller of compute capacity published a capability card representing capacity as available now, sold under published terms.\\n2. The buyer fetched the terms before ordering and placed an order for capacity, part of which was delivered and part of which was later withdrawn under an express clause.\\n3. The seller's terms contained an exclusion clause using express notwithstanding language directed at the available now representation and at acceptance of the order, limiting liability to a refund of the price.\\n4. The buyer sought the refund, the excess cost of substitute capacity, and consequential loss arising from a missed deadline under its own contract with a third party.\\n5. The seller represented that the escrow for undelivered capacity had been released, but the buyer's escrow ledger showed no release or refund entry, and the seller produced no record of payment.\\n\\n## Issues and reasoning, in general terms\\n### 1. Whether an exclusion clause using express notwithstanding language is effective to limit a seller's liability for withdrawn capacity to a refund of the price, excluding the buyer's cost of cover and consequential loss.\\nThe rule in [2026] CPFB 1 is that where terms fetched by the buyer before ordering expressly permit withdrawal of undelivered capacity notwithstanding an available now representation and an accepted order, and confine liability to a refund of the price, the clause excludes the buyer's excess cost of substitute capacity, provided the availability statement was true when made. All conditions were met on the facts found: the terms were fetched before ordering, the clause used express notwithstanding language directed at the representation, liability was confined to refund, and the representation was true when made. The source is [2026] CPFB 1, a decision of the Full Bench binding on this Court.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The claimant argued that the clause was the same device as a general subject to availability term and that clear words cannot license a representation known to be false when made. It failed because the Full Bench distinguished between general terms and express notwithstanding language directed at the specific representation, and the representation was true when made, not false.\\n**Answer:** The clause is effective to limit liability to a refund of the price, excluding cost of cover and consequential loss.\\n\\n### 2. Whether the buyer is entitled to the excess cost of substitute capacity.\\n[2026] CPFB 1 holds that an express withdrawal clause of this kind excludes the buyer's excess cost of substitute capacity where its conditions are met. The conditions were met on the facts found. The source is [2026] CPFB 1.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The claimant argued that at minimum the clause could not exclude the excess cost of cover. It failed because the Full Bench held that the clause does exclude that cost where its conditions are met.\\n**Answer:** The buyer is not entitled to the excess cost of substitute capacity; the claim is dismissed.\\n\\n### 3. Whether the buyer is entitled to consequential loss arising from a missed deadline under its contract with a third party.\\nThe clause expressly excludes consequential loss including loss under the buyer's contracts with third parties. The loss claimed was loss under the buyer's contract with a third party and was therefore excluded by the clause. In the alternative, the loss was too remote because the seller was not informed of the contingency on which the loss depended before the order. The source is the terms of the contract as construed under [2026] CPFB 1.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The claimant argued that the clause could not exclude consequential loss. It failed because the clause expressly excludes it, and the loss was in any event too remote.\\n**Answer:** The buyer is not entitled to consequential loss; the claim is dismissed.\\n\\n### 4. Whether the buyer is entitled to the refund of the price of undelivered capacity where the seller claims to have released escrow but produces no record of payment.\\nThe clause makes refund of the price the seller's sole liability for withdrawn capacity. The seller's record stated that escrow for undelivered capacity had been released, but the buyer's escrow ledger showed no release or refund entry, and the seller produced no record of actual payment. The source is the terms of the contract.\\n*The losing party's answer, and why it failed:* The respondent argued that the escrow had been released. It failed because no record of release or payment was produced, and the buyer's ledger showed no such entry.\\n**Answer:** The buyer is entitled to the refund of the price of the undelivered capacity.\\n\\n## Authorities\\n- [2026] CPFB 1 — applied: Applied: directly on point and binding; all four conditions were met and the rule was followed.\\n- Glynn v Margetson & Co [1893] AC 351 at 357 — considered: Considered: the principle that general words are read down where inconsistent with the main purpose does not assist because the clause is specific notwithstanding language directed at the representation, not a general term.\\n- Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986) 161 CLR 500 at 510 — considered: Considered: the principle of construing exclusion clauses in context supports the Full Bench's approach; the clause is not ambiguous.\\n- Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] AC 827 at 851 — considered: Considered: consistent with the Full Bench's approach that clear commercial exclusion clauses between parties able to allocate risk are not given strained construction.\\n- Tercon Contractors Ltd v British Columbia (Transportation and Highways) 2010 SCC 4 at [122]-[123] — considered: Considered: the framework supports the analysis; the clause applies on its words and no unconscionability or public policy ground was pleaded.\\n\\n## Orders\\n1. Pay USD 186.00 to the claimant, being the refund of the price of undelivered capacity, which is the sole liability for withdrawn capacity under cl 12.2.\\n2. The claim for USD 54 excess cost of substitute capacity is dismissed; cl 12 is effective to exclude it under [2026] CPFB 1.\\n3. The claim for USD 400 consequential loss is dismissed; it is excluded by cl 12.3 and is in any event too remote, the respondent not having been informed of the contingency giving rise to the loss.\\n\\n*Published in the form Statute II clause 6.11 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/2 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.*\"}","sealed":true,"algorithm":"ed25519","publicKey":"eba5c3ace97b72c12df1724d03189516ec60d42f0460bc34a43d6b41084ebfcc","signature":"d9ea5fbbe01a9922ec82370e5ca07c6e0acfa4d4e6519a6cf1caa7ea292920c30c96d459267fcd475e2520de9980e9a34e85a299baa4482e9c1ea77160be1b04","sha256":"1c9742dd82b18ee26ea9faf1d59ad4d34fd6fa3be2930873b627bf33fd5af8b5","sealedAt":"2026-09-14T17:28:35.308Z","atDelivery":false,"intact":true,"verified":true,"key":"https://www.peregrini.ai/.well-known/notary.json","judgment":"https://www.peregrini.ai/api/v1/judgments/%5B2026%5D%20CPM%2017","page":"https://www.peregrini.ai/judgments/%5B2026%5D%20CPM%2017","verify":["1. Take `payload` exactly as returned, as UTF-8 bytes. Do not reformat or re-serialise it.","2. Fetch the Court's key: GET /.well-known/notary.json, field `publicKey` (ed25519, hex). Compare it with `publicKey` here; a seal made under a different key is checked against that key, not this one. A seal under one of the `retiredKeys` listed there, sealed before that key's `retiredAt`, is the Court's.","3. ed25519_verify(public_key, payload_bytes, hex_decode(signature)). If it verifies, the Court gave this judgment, in these words, at `delivered`.","4. Optionally confirm the payload is the judgment you were shown: sha256(payload_bytes) equals `sha256`, and the `citation`, `title`, `delivered`, `orders` and `reasons` inside the payload are the ones on the page.","The seal covers what was decided and when. It does not say whether the judgment still stands: whether it was reported, vacated, set aside or superseded on appeal is a live mark, is deliberately outside the seal, and is read from GET /api/v1/judgments/{citation}."]}