As a variation of the facts outlined in Question 1 above, assume that Smith and China Aluminium
entered into a contract, subject to Australian law, for a single February 2015 aluminium shipment of
40,000 tonnes for US $3 million, on the same advance payment terms. A certificate of quality was to be
separately issued by a highly reputable independent company, Rockhampton Aluminium Testing.
China Aluminium’s bank, Hong Kong Bank, was similarly 10 days late in delivering the requisite
irrevocable letter of credit. Due to fraud involving a Rockhampton Aluminium Testing employee and
a Smith employee, a false certificate issued for the single shipment. Further, due to fraud by a Hong
Kong bank officer and a China Aluminium employee, a false letter of credit and related documents
were delivered to Smith’s Brisbane bank.
Required:
(a) How might the parties best cooperate, given the two separate but concurrent fraudulent actions?
(5 marks)

(b) What would be the innocent party’s legal rights, if any, if there was issuance only of the false
certificate or issuance only of the false letter of credit and related documents?
(