174 As to the decision of CB Direct, that was a case where the plaintiff sought to, in effect, enforce an agreement under which it was entitled to receive trailing commissions and which the defendant had purported to terminate. There was a serious question to be tried as to whether the defendant was entitled to terminate, and, in any event, there was a strong prima facie case that, if it was entitled to do so, it nonetheless elected to affirm the agreement. It alleged, in effect, that without the continued receipt of commissions, it faced external administration and the resultant loss of the goodwill of its business. There was, however, (apparently) no dispute about Challenger's liability for, or the quantum of, the trailing commissions if the purported termination was unlawful. In the present case, however, the CITIC Parties are not seeking to terminate the Mining Agreements and are not seeking, on that account, to avoid the payment of the Royalty B payments. Rather, in general terms, they contend that the Royalty B provision is uncertain and severable, or that they have a liability to pay a 'fair and reasonable' royalty to be determined by taking into account various alleged payments and other advantages retained by Mineralogy. Both liability and quantum are in dispute. Also, there is no finding or suggestion that Mineralogy is facing external administration, with the resultant loss of goodwill to its business, if it only received Royalty A payments pending trial. The CB Direct decision is of no material assistance to Mineralogy.