19 Page view A Read aloud V Draw Highlight 2 Eras ABC Freight Forwarders vs. Canada Fresh Produce Inc Facts: ABC Forwarder has acted as forwarder for Canada Fresh Produce Inc. over the course of several years. Canada Fresh Produce Inc. had signed a credit agreement which incorporated the CIFFA STCs and had received many quotations and e-mails from ABC Forwarder over the years. The customer was a distributor of fresh vegetables and imported approximately one container a week from the Far East. The vegetables had to be shipped in refrigerated containers. During a period of two months, four containers on four separate earch consignments arrived damaged. Inspection of the thermostat records showed fluctuations in temperature outside the acceptable range, and according to the surveyor the cargoes varied from 25% loss to total loss. Each container weighed approximately 8,000 kg. The consignee provided notice in writing and the forwarder also notified the carrier. The consignee paid for the freight charges on the damaged shipments in the usual course and continued doing business with the freightforwarder. After a period of several months had passed, the carrier refused the consignee'sclaim, stating that the cargoes had been "hot loaded" at room temperature rather than in a refrigerated facility and that this was what caused thetemperature fluctuations, and not the reefer containers. The consignee stopped paying the forwarder's invoices, and by the time credit was revoked 6 weeks later had accumulated charges of over CAN $120,000.00 on more than 20 recent shipments. ABC The consignee stopped paying the forwarder's invoices, and by the time credit was revoked 6 weeks later hadaccumulated charges of over CAN $120,000.00 on more than 20 recent shipments. ABC Forwarder sued for freight and related chargesowing. Canada Fresh Produce Inc. counterclaimed for CAN $200,000.00 in damage to its four cargoes, alleging the forwarder was responsible as principal because it had issued documents labelled "Multimodal Bill of Lading", although these had also indicated that ABC Forwarder acted as "agent for the carrier". They denied having ever read the STCs. They also registered the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, as both the forwarder and customer were located in British Columbia. 1 Given the facts in the case, do you think that the court would agree that the CIFFA Standard Trading Conditions would apply? Why or why not? and are there other steps ABC Forwarder could have taken to ensure that the STCswould apply? L