Problem Question Choco & Co is a small company based in Belgium which specialises in the production of luxury chocolate boxes. The director of Choco & co was approached by Finest food & Co, an Australian company, which submitted a purchase order for one million (1 m) chocolate boxes to be shipped under CIF terms to the Port of Brisbane (Australia). Choco & Co has agreed to supply Finest food & Co on the 2nd/05/2020 and its director issued an invoice for the amount of US$1,5m for the supply of 1 m chocolate boxes. The contract of sale incorporates as applicable law the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), expressly refers to the Incoterms rules 2010 and specifies the method of payment to be an irrevocable UCP 600 letter of credit. The contract of sale stipulates that the UCP 600 letter of credit must be opened by the 15th/05. Finest food & Co' s director had submitted a request to his bank to open a letter of credit in Choco & Co's favour and the letter of credit was opened on the 14th /05. Meanwhile, Choco & Co experienced a shortage of cocoa butter and could only produce 500,000 chocolate boxes. The company informed Finest food & Co of the shortage on the 20th/05. On the 25th/05, Choco & co has found a new supplier to ensure the supply of 1 m chocolate boxes. The goods were loaded onto a ship at the port of Antwerp (Belgium) to be shipped on Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) terms to the Port of Brisbane (Australia). Unfortunately, there was an accident on the ship and Choco & Co's cargo fell overboard into the sea at the port of Antwerp (Belgium). Having in his possession all the required documents as per the terms of the letter of credit, Choco & Co's director attempts to collect payment of US$ 1,5m but the Bank refuses to make the payment because the buyer has instructed the Bank not to proceed with payment because the goods were lost in the sea. Choco & Co imports some refined cocoa butter from a company called Cocoa Comm based in the UK. Choco & Co ordered 100,000 tons of cocoa butter to be transported on board a ship named 'The Esquist', from the Port of Plymouth (UK) to the port of Antwerp (Belgium). A bill of lading was issued at the Port of Plymouth (UK) which stipulates that the contract of carriage was governed by English law and the cargo of cocoa butter to be placed in a cargo hold under the deck of the ship. The captain of the ship decided that the cargo containing the cocoa butter should be carried on deck, disregarding the fact that cocoa butter is more susceptible to moisture damage when carried on deck. Before reaching the port of Antwerp, The Esquist was called to assist a vessel in distress called 'The Nogood'. Although it would have been possible to save the crew by alternative means, the captain of the NoGood insisted that the crew stay onboard to try and prevent the ship sinking as that would result in the loss of some cargo of precious metals. The captain of The Esquist agreed to tow The Nogood to safety but that meant that The Esquist had to deviate from its route and would be delayed. In the process of towing The Nogood, some cargos fell from the deck including the cargo containing the 100,000 tons of cocoa butter.

Answer all Questions - (THREE-THOUSAND WORD )

a) On the 20th/05/2020, can Choco & Co revoke its offer to supply 1 m chocolate boxes and supply 500,000 boxes instead?

b) The cargo fell off the ship before its departure from the port of Antwerp (Belgium). Who bears the risk of loss or damage to the goods at the time of the accident?

c) Is the bank under obligation to pay Choco & Co?

d) Identify the carrier's obligations at issue here and consider whether the carrier (The Esquist) has met his obligations at common law and under the Hague-Visby rules.

e) Does the contract fall under the scope of application of the Hague-Visby rules or common law principles?