They represent the Respondent buyers in Bunge SA v Nidera BV [UKSC 2014/0019], the appeal from the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Bunge v Nidera  1 Lloyd’s Rep. 404. The case addressed the quantum of damages in circumstances where the Sellers wrongfully repudiated the contract, but the Russian prohibition on the export of wheat during the summer of 2010 would have provided them with a right of termination had the contract continued in effect.
The two issues in the case were expressed as follows:
Issue 1: On the assumption, in the Sellers’ favour, that The Golden Victory  2 A.C. 353 applies to the present case and that the Buyers on the facts of the present case wouldbe entitled only to recover nominal damages for the Sellers’ breach absent the GAFTA Default Clause (“the assumption”), does that Clause entitle the Buyers to recover damages in the sum of US$3,062,500 as awarded by the GAFTA Appeal Board?
Issue 2: If not, is the assumption valid (it being Buyers’ contention that is it not valid, but the Sellers’ contention that it is valid)?