Debbie is an artist for making potteries and also runs a company for making and selling regular crystal vases. Debbie and Justine entered into two contracts. In the first contract, it was agreed that Debbie would sell 500 crystal vases to Justine and Debbie would deliver the vases in 10 separate deliveries in lots of 50. During the negotiation of the first contract, Debbie showed a rectangular crystal vase to Justine. In the second contract, Justine expressed that he really liked Debbie's work in pottery and requested that Debbie make a unique circular shape clay pot for him to be delivered on or before 5 May 2011 and he would in turn pay HK$5000 for it. In relation to the first contract, on the 5th delivery of the vases (200 vases had already been delivered); Justine found out that there were cracks on the vases and that the previous 4 deliveries all had cracks in them too. When Justine told Debbie about the cracks, Debbie said that the rectangular sample crystal vase had a crack too, and because it was a sample sale, Justine is bound by the contract. Further, when there were still 50 vases left to be delivered; Debbie's company went into liquidation. In the warehouse where Debbie kept the vases, there were 50 unmarked rectangular crystal vases among other shape of vases. Justine is claiming ownership of those 50 rectangular crystal vases. In relation to the second contract, on 5 May 2011, Justine called up Debbie and was told that the circular shape clay pot was not ready. Justine got really upset and told Debbie that he no longer wanted the pot and that according to section 30 of the Sale of Goods Ordinance that because Debbie could not or was not willing to deliver while he was willing to pay, Debbie had breached the sales of goods contract. Advise BOTH parties. Do not discuss issues in relation to the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (if any)