Between the fish cannery and the trading house an agreement was signed on the supply of canned fish. During the two autumn months, the fish cannery did not fulfill the obligation to deliver canned fish to the trading house, and therefore was brought to the payment of the penalty on the claim of the buyer.
At the arbitration meeting, the plant explained that the non-delivery of canned food was caused by the malfunction 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?

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be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated.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.