The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) applies to the following matter.

Triple8 Canneries (T8C), located in Sydney, Australia, sold a quantity of canned pears to a buyer, FP Imports, in Singapore. The contract provided that the cans should bear no markings, as this would allow local marketing labels to be applied to the products. The buyer arranged for the goods to be inspected at the port when the goods were unloaded from the ship. The independent inspection company hired by FP Imports confirmed the canned goods were good quality and in excellent condition, following which arrangements were made for the goods to be taken to a warehouse for storage by FP Imports, pending distribution.

Premium Foods bought a crate of the canned pears from FP Imports for sale at a number of its stores. A customer of a Premium Foods store subsequently sought to return one of the cans as the customer claimed it contained plums, not pears. Premium Foods contacted FP Imports to complain it had been sold plums, not pears.

FP Imports then arranged an inspection of a sample of the canned goods in its storage warehouse. A sampling of 40 cans confirmed that 28 contained a mixture of plums and pears, while 12 contained pears only.

FP Imports then sent notice to T8C advising that the goods supplied were non-conforming as they contained a mixture of fruits, not pears as per the contract.

FP Imports was able to sell the canned goods as mixed fruit, but these were sold at a much lower price than would have been received for pure canned pears.

FP Imports now wishes to be reimbursed by T8C for the difference between its expected profits and actual profits for the canned goods.

Confining your response to the legal issues arising under the CISG, advise FP Imports as to its prospects of success.