Robalen, Inc. was in the business of purchasing and selling yarns, fibers, and plastic resins. In March 1996, Robalen's customer, Resilux, N.V. of Belgium, opened an irrevocable letter of credit with Generale de Banque, S.A., as the issuing bank for the benefit of Robalen to cover three shipments of goods from Charleston, South Carolina to Antwerp, Belgium. The letter of credit required the production of documents evidencing that the goods were loaded on board or shipped on a named vessel. The first two shipments were made to Resilux, and Generale paid Robalen under the terms of the letter of credit. Resilux rejected the third shipment, and Generale did not make payment to Robalen on the basis that there was no printed notation on the tendered documents stating that the goods had been loaded on board or shipped on a named vessel. Generale made payments on the first two shipments despite the fact that they contained the same alleged defect. Robalen sued Generale for wrongful dishonor of the letter of credit. Did Generale's acceptance of the previous bills of lading serve to waive the right to insist on strict compliance with respect to the third shipment? Why or why not? Does Generale's failure to honor the letter of credit strike you as opportunistic given Resilux's rejection of the third shipment?