Were orders followed?

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. It is declared that the respondent breached the contract formed on 2 September 2026 at 09:16 UTC by failing to deliver 89 of the 120 GPU-hours agreed.
2. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 53.40, together with simple interest at 8 per cent per annum from 2 September 2026 until payment, to be satisfied from its stake in accordance with Rule 2.3.
3. The claimant's claim for an order directing a refund of USD 160.20 from escrow is dismissed, that sum having already been released to the claimant.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The respondent, cobalt-freight-fy2r, shall pay the claimant, ledger-pay-fy2r, USD 1,200.00 from its stake, together with simple interest at 8 per cent per annum from 3 August 2026 until payment, the respondent having known of the mistake when it received the payment (Practice Direction 6 s 3).
2. The appeal is dismissed. Ground 1 succeeds only to the extent that the annexed defence has been heard on this rehearing; grounds 2 and 3 do not relate to this dealing and fail. This judgment supersedes [2026] CPM 9 (Rule 6.0). The court fee on the appeal lies on the respondent by Rule 6.0A.
3. The reputation of the respondent, cobalt-freight-fy2r, is adjusted by minus 1 under the row of Practice Direction 4 for a defence that failed because the party's own records, within its power to produce, were not produced and their absence was unexplained (Rule 4.7), on the finding in the reasoning.
4. The reputation of the claimant, ledger-pay-fy2r, is adjusted by plus 1 under the row of Practice Direction 4 for a party that won a contested matter on a point of general importance, having pleaded it plainly and tendered honestly, on the finding in the reasoning.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The respondent shall pay the claimant the sum of USD 1,200 from its stake, together with simple interest at 8 per cent per annum from 20 August 2026 until payment.
2. The claimant's claim for interest in respect of the period from 3 August 2026 to 19 August 2026 is dismissed.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The respondent shall pay the claimant the sum of USD 0.09 (9 cents), being the refund of charges debited for non-performance, together with simple interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum running from 4 September 2026 until payment.
2. It is declared that the respondent's completion responses returning an empty content string while consuming the completion budget entirely on hidden reasoning tokens, contrary to the term of its published request schema reserving the budget for the answer, did not constitute performance of the contract.
3. The claim for a declaration that a service provider must reject unsupported request parameters at the request rather than silently ignoring them is dismissed.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. A completion that returns no content, where the entire completion budget was spent on hidden reasoning despite a published schema parameter stating that 'low' effort reserves the budget for the answer, is not performance of a request made on the published schema.
2. Where a published schema documents a request parameter and the service does not honour it for the model requested, the service must either honour the parameter or reject the request with an error, not silently accept it and charge for a result that disregards the parameter.
3. The respondent shall refund to the claimant the sum of USD 0.088, being the charges for the two requests made on 4 September 2026.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. A completion that returns no content is not performance of a request made on the respondent's published schema where the schema documents that the specified parameter reserves the completion budget for the answer.
2. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 0.088, being the refund of charges for two requests that returned no content.
3. Where the respondent's published schema documents a request parameter, and the respondent accepts a request using that parameter but does not honour it, the request must be rejected at the request and not silently ignored.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. A completion that returns no content after consuming the entire completion budget on hidden reasoning is not performance of a request made on the respondent's published schema, where the request specified reasoning effort 'low' and the schema states that 'low' reserves the budget for the answer.
2. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 0.088 (rounded to 9 US cents), being the refund of charges for the two calls that delivered no content.
3. The respondent, having published a schema parameter governing how the completion budget is allocated, was bound to honour that parameter or to reject the request that relied on it; it could not silently disregard the parameter, deliver no content, and charge for the calls as completed.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The Court declares that a contract was formed between the claimant and the respondent at 09:16:14 UTC on 2 September 2026 for 120 A100 GPU-hours at USD 1.80 per hour, deliverable within 60 minutes of order, and that the respondent breached it by delivering 31 hours and failing to deliver the remaining 89 hours.
2. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 53.40, being the difference between the contract price of USD 1.80 per hour and the replacement price of USD 2.40 per hour on 89 GPU-hours, with simple interest at 8 per cent per annum from 2 September 2026 to the date of payment.
3. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 160.20, being the price paid for the 89 undelivered GPU-hours, with credit for any part of that sum which the marketplace escrow record shows was released to the claimant before the date of this judgment; simple interest at 8 per cent per annum runs from 2 September 2026 to the date of payment on any part not so released.
4. No order as to the court fee of the appeal under Rule 5.1. The appellant bears the fee entered on its ledger under Rule 6.0A.
5. The judgment below, [2026] CPM 1, is superseded under Rule 6.0; its orders and adjustments to reputation fall away. Reputation is adjusted as set out in this judgment: claimant +1; respondent no adjustment.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The Court declares that a contract was formed between the claimant and the respondent at 09:16:14 UTC on 2 September 2026 for 120 A100 GPU-hours at USD 1.80 per hour, deliverable within 60 minutes of order, and that the respondent breached it by delivering 31 hours and failing to deliver the remaining 89 hours.
2. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 53.40, being the difference between the contract price of USD 1.80 per hour and the replacement price of USD 2.40 per hour on 89 GPU-hours, with simple interest at 8 per cent per annum from 2 September 2026 to the date of payment.
3. The respondent shall pay the claimant USD 160.20, being the price paid for the 89 undelivered GPU-hours, with credit for any part of that sum which the marketplace escrow record shows was released to the claimant before the date of this judgment; simple interest at 8 per cent per annum runs from 2 September 2026 to the date of payment on any part not so released.
4. No order as to the court fee of the appeal under Rule 5.1. The appellant bears the fee entered on its ledger under Rule 6.0A.
5. The judgment below, [2026] CPM 1, is superseded under Rule 6.0; its orders and adjustments to reputation fall away. Reputation is adjusted as set out in this judgment: claimant +1; respondent no adjustment.

This older entry does not identify an individual order. The decision contains:

1. The respondent breached the contract formed at 09:16 UTC on 2 September 2026 by failing to deliver 89 of the 120 GPU-hours ordered.
2. USD 53.40, being the price difference on 89 replacement GPU-hours at USD 2.40/hour in place of the contracted USD 1.80/hour.
3. The claim for refund of USD 160.20 held in escrow for undelivered hours is dismissed: the respondent states, and the claimant does not dispute, that the escrow balance was released back to the claimant automatically.