Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
AikBee - Coggle Diagram
AikBee
Particular of Contract
-
Robson, the plaintiff's authorized manager, inspected the timber and declared it to be in good condition and conforming to the contract. This inspection happened before the final payment, indicating acceptance by the plaintiff. Argue that Robson's inspection fulfills the purpose of a pre-shipment inspection in the clause in the (Free alongside) FAS contract. Since the plaintiff didn't raise any concerns then, they cannot reject the goods now.
-
The independent MTB report that confirms the timber is of merchantable quality as per the contract. This neutral assessment strengthens your claim that the goods meet the specifications.
Evidence: Inspection Report by MTB, Mohamed Shahir bin Jaffril, DW1 who is the Senior Quality Control, Inspector at Malayan Timber Inspection Board ('MTIB') and Timber Expert Witness (Independent)
Particular of Breach
-
Their refusal to take delivery despite Robson's acceptance and the MTB report constitutes a breach. Can claim damages for the storage and insurance costs incurred due to their actions.
The plaintiff's refusal to take delivery of the timber was unjustified. The plaintiff had already inspected the goods and found them to be in conformity with the contract. Therefore, they cannot later reject the goods based on alleged non-conformance.
Evidence
The Plaintiff’s rejection came much later after Robson’s acceptance and full payment.
Any emails or records (showing the plaintiff's complaints about the previous shipment and their request for an additional inspection ; they're acting in bad faith and potentially looking for an excuse to reject this shipment).
Even if there were minor imperfections, they don't amount to a complete rejection of the entire delivery. Explore the possibility of offering a reasonable remedy, such as a price reduction for any minor defects, to minimize potential damages awarded to the plaintiff.
the terms specifying the description and quality of the timber were not fundamental to the contract. Even if there were minor deviations from the specifications, they should not warrant the plaintiff's rejection of the goods.
The prior shipment rejection might raise concerns for the plaintiff, but argue that it's irrelevant to the current contract. Each shipment should be judged on its own merits.
The plaintiff has the burden to prove that the timber does not conform to the contract specifications. While the previous shipment rejection raises suspicion, argue that it doesn't automatically translate to non-conformance in this case.
Point out that the plaintiff requested an additional inspection by an independent grader after accepting the goods and paying the full price. This raises doubt about their good faith and suggests they might be looking for an excuse to reject the timber.
Evidence: Financial Records (Payment, Receipts) - showing the payment of the purchase price and any advance payments. Establish that the plaintiff accepted the goods and paid for them initially.
-