The appeal was dismissed because the respondent's evidence regarding the breach of contract and the quantum of damages was uncontested at trial. The appellant failed to adduce any evidence to support its defence or to challenge the respondent's figures, including the yield and price per ton, which were supported by the appellant's own productivity report. The trial magistrate was justified in awarding damages for three crop cycles as the contract contemplated one plant and two ratoon crops, and the failure to harvest the plant crop compromised the subsequent cycles. The principle of mitigation of loss did not avail the appellant as it did not show how the respondent could have mitigated the loss. The damages awarded were not excessive, as the trial court used conservative yield figures. The respondent was entitled to compensation for the full contractual period as a direct consequence of the appellant's breach.