(3)

C:Shall we proceed to the next point?

M:All right.The next point is BPL content.An analysis was made of the shipment and the BPL content was only 70.89%,lower than required,so we are lodging a claim of $XX for inferior quality.

C:I’m afraid I must explain that when our products are treated,they are separated into various piles with contents of 68%，70%，72% and 74%,etc.The shipment,as in this case,is designed to come out with the approximate content of 73%.

M:Then how would you explain why the BPL content was not up to your own standard?

C:The method of sampling is crucial too.If you take samples from the ship,you’ll be taking rocks of larger granulation,which are lower in BPL content than the smaller ones.If the correct method was used,we do not feel it is possible to have a difference of 2%as you suggested.

M:The method used was the one you recommended and the percentage is there in the report in black and white.

C:Yes,I know.In this case,I’ll have to ask you again for your samples for sending them back for reanalysis.

(A few days later)

C:Well,Mr.Ma,my home office rushed the analysis reports back.The samples for moisture and BPL content were tested by yet another two laboratories.

M:And what did they find?

C:Here are the reports.Be kind enough to go over them.

M:Umm...the moisture content is lower than that in our report submitted.

C:Yes.In fact it is lower by 0.2% than what we billed.So,I don’t believe the claim of short weight due to excessive moisture has a leg to stand on as we have agreed that the analysis of samples taken at the time of loading is the basis for claims.The reanalysis shows the moisture content to be within the specification allowance.Therefore,we disallow your claim on this point.The question of freight charges will not hold water either.

M:All right.We will abide strictly by the stipulations in our contract.But as to the BPL content,I see it is also lower,Mr.Carlos.

C:Yes.We see some justification for a claim of lower valuation on this point,though we are very much surprised the BPL content turned out to be so much lower in your evaluation.

M:The method of analysis adopted by our inspection personnel was in conformity with the methods recommended.

C:We still feel the BPL content would be very largely calculated by the method of sampling.You will note,too,that the analysis from the two laboratories on the samples I just turned over to you shows quite a difference between the analysis made on the original shipping samples and your samples on arrival.

M:That might be the case,Mr.Carlos,but it’s a fact that BPL content is lower than stipulated.

C:It’s most unfortunate and my home office has instructed me to do my best to remedy it.

M:We appreciate your efforts.

C:As we wish to settle the claim with you,my home office proposed that we compensate you for the 35 tons short weight and as the BPL difference is entirely due to the method of sampling used,we propose to settle on the basis of a 50/50 split between the original analysis on our shipment and the reanalysis on your returned samples.

M:Your proposal is reasonable.We accept it on both points and in view of this satisfactory conclusion of the matter,we will also waive our claim for the inspection fee.

C:Thank you.We appreciate your cooperation in settling this unfortunate affair and we look forward to a further extension of pleasant business relations.