[His lordship stated the facts as summarised in the headnote and continued:] For my part, I do not think there can be any sound reason which should entitle this court to interfere with the trial judge's view that the respondent acted reasonably in hiring the caterpillar as a replacement vehicle to mitigate the damage or loss he suffered by being deprived of the use of his own equipment in his timber business. The question as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the steps taken in hiring a caterpillar to do the job of timber felling which, but for the appellants' wrongful act, would have been done by the respondent's own equipment is one of fact which had been answered in the respondent's favour by the trial judge, and the appellate court is bound to accept that answer as final. The learned trial judge found that it was a reasonable act in the particular circumstances for the respondent to have hired the caterpillar to the effect that the respondent tried unsuccessfully to procure similar trucks or other vehicles of the same prestige and class as the Fordson tractor and G.M.C. lorry. The judge had evidence before him that the respondent had [p.11] made inquiries at the appropriate garages from which the Fordson tractor and G.M.C. lorry were obtainable, but could not get suitable alternative vehicles at less expense there or elsewhere. The respondent was therefore under an obligation to act reasonably and to take immediately such steps as might be reasonable in order to mitigate the loss which he otherwise would have suffered; and when he decided to use the caterpillar for his business so long as it was available for use and no other vehicles of comparable size were available it could hardly be said that he acted unreasonably in the particular circumstances. I do not think that the appellants' counsel's contention against the judge's finding in this regard could be right. No other vehicle of the same class as the respondent's equipment was offered to the respondent by the appellants. It is in my opinion quite immaterial whether the caterpillar was too costly as a substitute for the Fordson tractor and the G.M.C. lorry. What matters is that those vehicles were unobtainable whilst the respondent's timber felling business must go on.
As almost all the criticisms levelled against parts of the learned judge's findings were on matters of fact, I am able to say that the trial judge who saw the witnesses who testified before him obviously took a great d
