As the Defendants were notified of the problems in late July and there were subsequent discussions as to the best way forward to minimize delay, would they be liable as to causing delay by not agreeing to amended PIC?

Further, their defence appears at best spurious given the facts of the Motion, in that the reams of internet printouts and acknowledged mistakes had already been addressed by TPL in July. That they used the confusion as to terms, in the full knowledge that TPL had sought to address and clarify the matter with them, must weigh against them, surely?

Be well