The plaintiff and defendant were cotton dealers who entered into a written agreement on 17 August 2011. Under the agreement, the defendant would act as the plaintiff's agent to purchase seed cotton from farmers throughout the country for delivery to the plaintiff's ginnery or other approved ginneries. The plaintiff provided an initial amount of US$120,000 in two phases for the defendant to purchase 205 tonnes of seed cotton. The seed cotton would be processed into lint and cotton seed. The plaintiff paid the defendant a total of US$1,490,652 (including US$30,652 for transport) for procurement of seed cotton. However, the defendant failed to deliver all the seed cotton for which it had been paid, resulting in a shortfall equivalent to 85.57 tonnes of processed lint. The plaintiff had confirmed orders from a South African customer (Branson Marketing) to purchase the cotton lint at prices ranging from 91.50 to 94.50 US cents per pound (equivalent to approximately US$2,104 per tonne). The plaintiff lost this market due to the defendant's breach.
The court ordered: (1) the defendant shall deliver 85.57 tonnes of cotton lint to the plaintiff within 7 days; (2) failing such delivery, the defendant shall pay damages of US$2,104 per tonne, totaling US$180,039.28; (3) the defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs of suit.
In a contract between commercial dealers where both parties are merchants dealing for profit rather than consumers, special or extrinsic damages for loss of profit from forward contracts with end markets are recoverable if the parties actually or presumptively contemplated such loss would result from breach. Under the contemplation principle (not the convention principle), the defaulting party is liable for a type of loss if the contracting parties actually or presumptively foresaw that the breach would result in such loss, without requiring an express contractual undertaking to be liable for such damages. Where the contract expressly states the parties' common goal of creating wealth through cooperation, and the nature of the business makes it obvious that goods are being procured for resale to end markets, loss of profit from such resale contracts is within the parties' contemplation. Damages for breach of contract need not be established with mathematical exactitude; a plaintiff who has suffered loss and produced all evidence reasonably available is entitled to an award based on an estimate from the available evidence, including forward contracts showing the value of goods at the date delivery should have been made.
The court noted in passing that the defendant had alluded during cross-examination to cotton seed becoming unavailable from farms during the contract period, but observed this was never pleaded as a defense of supervening impossibility of performance. The court therefore did not address this potential defense. The court also observed, citing Hersman v Shapiro & Co, that people who buy and sell commodities to make their living intend to buy in a cheap market and sell in a dear market, and that in making contracts for forward delivery a degree of speculation is necessarily involved where they take the risk of price variations. The court noted some uncertainty about whether the quoted prices were gross or net, and that the plaintiff would not be entitled to gross amounts including costs like freight which were not incurred, but this aspect was not fully explored at trial.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean commercial law for its application of the contemplation principle in assessing special/extrinsic damages for breach of contract. It clarifies that in commercial dealings between merchants, loss of profit from forward contracts with end markets will generally be within the contemplation of the parties and therefore recoverable as special damages, particularly where the contract expressly contemplates mutual profit-making. The judgment also reinforces that damages need not be proven with mathematical precision where the plaintiff has adduced the best evidence reasonably available, and that forward contracts constitute sufficient evidence of value. The case demonstrates the court's willingness to award substantial commercial damages beyond intrinsic loss where the circumstances establish that such consequences were foreseeable.