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 STCs would apply? (5 marks)

2. Although ABC Forwarder did issue a transport document, that transport document had the name of the carrier (BIG Steamship line) and it clearly indicated on its face that ABC Forwarder was acting as "agent for the carrier". However, there seems to be confusion as to whether ABC Forwarder had acted as "agent" or "principal". Please explain as to if the CIFFA STCs apply differently if ABC Forwarder was acting as "agent" or as "principal" and what paragraph(s) of the CIFFA STCs would apply? (4 marks)

3. If ABC Forwarder were to be found liable as principal for the cargo damage of CAN $200,000.00, could the forwarder limit or avoid liability? What paragraphs would apply? (3 marks)

4. Assuming that the court did find that the STCs apply, do you think that the court would support the customer-s "set-off" - that the importer could get away with not paying CAN $120,000.00 worth of ABC's invoices in order to recoup their cargo losses? What sections of the STC's would apply? (3 marks)