Considered whether a party in repudiation of a contract can rely on events that happened after an agreement is broken to limit the damages. The appellant shipowner (G) appealed against a decision that it was not entitled to damages measured by reference to the full term of a time charter that had been repudiated by the respondent charterers (N). The contract included a war clause that allowed either party to terminate the contract if war should break out between certain named countries. N repudiated the contract be redelivering the ship to G, G accepted the repudiation and claimed damages. War subsequently broke out and the arbitrator determined that this placed a limit on the damages. G argued the outbreak of war was irrelevant. The issue was whether the damages for repudiation should be assessed on the knowledge available at or about the date of the breach of contract or on the known situation at the date of legal proceeding. "Held": appeal dismissed. A subsequent event, some time after the breach, can limit the measure of damages.