A Customer's $124,000 Damages Claim Became a $50,000 Payment
A board-game company asserted more than $124,000 in packaging and shipping losses against Easyship, Inc. while owing about $55,000 in invoices. It paid $50,000 in a lump sum without litigation.
$124K → $50K
payment reversed, from customer to client
- Resolved
- Pre-suit
The situation
A board-game company asserted more than $124,000 in damages against longtime client Easyship, Inc., an international shipping and fulfillment provider, alleging packaging defects, damaged merchandise and shipping failures — while itself owing roughly $55,000 in unpaid invoices. Ambiguities in the agreement, including an incorrect reference to standard terms and the absence of an integration clause, gave the customer additional arguments against payment.
The approach
Substantiation was required for every category of claimed loss — shipment records, replacement costs, and supporting accounting records — and the allegations were compared against Easyship's internal shipment and account records. The contractual basis for shifting losses to Easyship was challenged on the agreement's limitations and disclaimers, deficiencies in the damages calculation were identified, and the proposed setoff against the unpaid invoices was contested.
The outcome
With the alleged losses still inadequately substantiated, the customer faced a straightforward choice: resolve the outstanding balance or litigate. After offers of $35,000 and $45,000, it paid $50,000 in a lump-sum settlement without litigation.
The full write-up
This page keeps the figures and the holding. The firm's own account of the matter, in full, is here:
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Each matter is different, and the results described here were achieved on the specific facts of those matters.