Acceptance of Shipment.
Yes, GFI does have any genuine reason to expect that E would receive the fourth consignment as the agreement between both the parties establishes the payment contract and E has accepted each and every payment sent by GFI whether it was achieved according to agreement or not. First consignment and second consignment were same and similarly third consignment and fourth consignment was also same. However, E did not convey about the obliteration of chips on third consignment. Therefore, when GFI made fourth consignment then also he presumes that E would accept the fourth consignment also.
Remedies of the Buyer or Lesser:
In the case of Lehor v. Beems , a trial court would probably find that Beems is in breach of contract and award Lehor with the goods or present an order to Beems to repay Lehor's deposit according to the terms of the contract plus pay costs that cover the difference between the quote for goods and the cost to secure the goods from another seller.
As soon as Lehor sent payment the contract was in place and therefore Beems was obligated to provide Lehor with the parts according to the agreement. Failing recovery of the contracted goods, Lehor is within his rights to pursue Beem for the difference in what it would cost for him to purchase the parts from another seller.
Breach of Contracts by Sales or Lease.
Sometimes, an agreed on manner of delivery becomes unviable or unobtainable through no fault of either party. In that situation, if a commercially sensible substitute is available, this supernumerary presentation is adequate tender to the purchaser and must be used. In this case, if GFI supernumerary A Exp instead of HK Air because of some unworkability then that does not establish breach of agreement but if GFI auxiliary it without any sensible cause, then GFI will be accountable for break of contract.