LAWS3328 - International Commercial Law - Anwar Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task :

Anwar Trading, a company situated in Malaysia, agreed to buy from Howard International Pty Ltd, a company situated in Fremantle, 500 metric tonnes of Grade 1 Jasmine rice, payment to be made in advance. The seller promised to arrange for the transportation of the cargo through a reliable carrier. The rice was to be delivered in 2 instalments. The first instalment of 250 metric tonnes was to be delivered in April and the second instalment was to be delivered in June. The rice was to be shipped from Thailand where Howard had vast plantations. Anwar is a wholesaler which re-sells goods to supermarkets in Malaysia and Singapore. 
The parties entered into the contract in Singapore which also contained the following terms:
"Clause 1
The parties agree that all disputes arising in connection with this agreement shall be settled by arbitration in Singapore pursuant to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce.
Clause 2
The rice must be suitable for the Singapore market."
The first instalment arrived in April. Upon inspection in Singapore, the rice was found to contain a pesticide which makes the rice illegal to sell in Singapore. It was declared to be Grade 4 rice, which is only suitable for sale as animal feed in Singapore. Anwar immediately arranged for the rice to be stored with Easy Storage which was known to be the most competitive storage facility in Singapore.  Anwar immediately wrote to Howard attaching the test results from the Singapore Government indicating that the rice is not suitable for sale in Singapore for human consumption. The letter also demanded that a refund should be made and the rice be collected immediately. Anwar also insisted that it would not take delivery of the June instalment.  Since April, the price of Grade 1 rice has dropped significantly.
One month passed and Howard had still not arranged for collection of the rice despite repeated demands nor has it provided the refund. As the storage costs were mounting, Anwar told Easy Storage to arrange for the sale of the rice by advertised auction and informed Howard of the proposed sale. However, Howard did not respond. Easy Storage remitted the money to Anwar after deduction of advertising, auction and storage costs.
Anwar plans to sue Howard for the balance of the purchase price in the WA Supreme Court.
(Assume that Australia and Singapore are signatories to the Vienna Sales Convention and that Malaysia is not.)

Based on the above factual situation, answer the following questions:
(i)  With reference to art 1, does the Vienna Convention apply to the contract?  Give reasons for your answer.
(ii) Has Howard breached its duties under the contract?    
(iii) Has Anwar correctly notified Howard of the April breach? 
(iv) Has Anwar correctly preserved and sold the delivered rice?  
(v) Will Anwar succeed in relation to the April instalment?     
(vi) Will  Anwar receive a refund for the June instalment?   

This Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Experts at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turnitin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.