Between the fish cannery and the trading house an agreement on the supply of canned fish has been concluded. During the two autumn months, the fish cannery did not fulfill its obligation to supply canned fish to a trading house, and therefore the buyer filed a lawsuit against the plant to pay the penalty. At the court session, the plant explained that the non-delivery of canned food was caused by the irregularity in the work of its own suppliers, fishing collective farms, which were forced to suspend fishing for a long time due to stormy weather. The trading house did not admit the arguments of the defendant convincing, believing that they might be relevant in disputes between the plant and the collective farms, but not when considering the claim brought against the plant by the trading house. What is your opinion on this issue? Argue your answer.
After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.
No feedback yet