From Plaintiff to Payor

The Dispute

A board-game company asserted more than $124,000 in damages against our longtime client, Easyship, Inc., an international shipping and fulfillment provider. The alleged losses concerned packaging defects, damaged merchandise, and shipping failures. The company itself owed approximately $55,000 in unpaid invoices.

Ambiguities in the agreement complicated collection. An incorrect reference to standard terms and the absence of an integration clause gave the customer additional arguments against payment.

The Strategy

We required substantiation for each category of claimed loss, including shipment records, replacement costs, and supporting accounting records.

The records. We compared the customer’s allegations with Easyship’s internal shipment and account records.

The contract. We challenged the asserted basis for shifting losses to Easyship and relied on the agreement’s applicable limitations and disclaimers.

The accounting. We identified deficiencies in the damages calculation and challenged the proposed setoff against the unpaid invoices.

With the alleged losses still inadequately substantiated, we presented a straightforward choice: resolve the outstanding balance or litigate.

The Result

After offers of $35,000 and $45,000, the customer paid $50,000 in a lump-sum settlement without litigation.

The Takeaway

The size of an asserted damages claim does not establish its value. Testing the supporting evidence changed the negotiation from what Easyship should pay to what its customer would pay toward the outstanding balance.

Easyship is in the shipping business. So we sent them packing.