1.ADMER, a company based in Rangar, sends a document to Porey, a company based in neighbouring Narsh, for the exclusive sale of Morley cigarettes by ADMER to Porey. This document specified that the purchase price of Morley cigarettes depended on the exchange rate between Rangar and Narsh prevailing at the time of purchase. Furthermore, a clause in that document contained a Delivery Duty Paid Incoterm. Porey did not sign and return the document, but instead organised a document under Australian law which provided for payment to ADMER of AUD$3 million at 120 days D/A. This document was then sent to ADMER using an international air courier company called Tricell who issued an air consignment note in favour of ADMER Unfortunately, this document fell out of its envelope during transit and was lost. ADMER had first obtained cargo insurance for this document from Hanso Inc. pursuant to which liability would be determined in accordance with the Cargo Clauses (Air) of the Institute of London Underwriters. Concerned by these developments, Porey successfully lobbied Narsh to prosecute ADMER for anti-competitive behaviour before Narsh's courts and under Narsh's national law.

Giving reasons for your answers:

(i)from which company, if any, could ADMER claim payment or compensation;

(ii)before which court or tribunal could ADMER make that claim;

(iii)what might be the applicable law; and

is ADMER potentially liable under Narsh's anti-competition law