Rejection of Claim

To: Eric H. Williams

Purchasing Manager

From: Ma Jun

Marketing Manager

Date: September 1,2002

Re: Rejection of Claim

Dear Eric,

It’s ridicule that I’ve got a claim which sounds just like a puppy talking to a senior who is hunting the wolves all of his life. Let me tell thou why it sounds like it.

First, you say MgO: 90.95% by your client. I bet there is no difference between MgO 91% and 90.95% in the refractory sense.

Second, you’re saying that the SiO₂ which is above 4.15% against your 4.154%. I believe they’re in the narrowest sense the same according to the SGS standard.

Third, the ratio between SiO₂to CaO is 1:2. 28. This is nothing wrong according to our agreement of “RATIO OF SIO2 TO CAO SHOULD BE BETWEEN 2 OR MORE THAN 2.”

At last, the item ofFe₂O₃ is also wrong. Your customer’s lab test is 0.65% but SGS standard at loading port is 0.6%. I suggest that your customer check the standard of SGS and have the sample tested again.

According to the above, I could make the decision that there are no discrepancies of the uniform quality of the materials shipped by G.E..

Heart-felt regards,

Ma Jun