Unfortunately I don't know much about the legal merits of the case. I have a pretty good handle on the facts but I think to provide them with the analysis they are seeking we would need to do some significant research. There seem to be quite a few issues in the case. Did title to the goods ever pass to the buyer since the goods in question were rejected as non-conforming? Whose duty was it to return the rejected goods to the seller? Did the buyer satisfy its duty of care with regard to storage of the goods? If it did not fulfill its duty of care is it excused because of force majeure? I suppose this research should have been done already before we submitted the answer but I wold guess theres a reasonable chance it may not have. I think the best thing to do would be to throw these bombs at Ms. Ploy and Ms. Pang. She seems to be pretty good and diligent with the research. Sorry I can't be of more assistance on this, I should have taken care of it before I left but I was sort of expecting them to settle so I put it on hold.