As noted by Todd, the sale of goods contract functions to articulate the conditions of a particular transaction and elucidate its particularities, from the description of the goods being sold to the place and time of delivery.2 In other words, the sale of goods contract details the conditions and circumstances which would govern a particular transaction. Given the supposedly comprehensive nature of the referenced document it thus functions as a reference point in instances of contract dispute.
Proceeding from the above outline of the definitional and functional parameters of a sales contract, Kate is not obliged to accept the mistake while Susan is obliged to correct it. This contention, together with the advice that Kate need contract the services of a law and take the matter to court, are supportable through reference to both law and case law.
As noted by international contract law scholar, John O. Honnold, Article 35 of the Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nation Convention, clearly explicates the function of a sales contract in instances of dispute. ...
The above articulated Article is further fortified by national laws pertaining to sales contracts in both the buyer and the seller's home countries, the UK and the USA. As Honnold notes, US law provides for implicit warranties and guarantee of quality and conformity within the contract itself. In other words, beyond its function as statement outlining the parameters of a commercial arrangement between parties, US law defines sale of goods contracts as warranties of quality and guarantee that the transferred goods would comply with their contracted descriptions.5 Similarly, the UK Sale of Goods Act (1893) holds the contract to be a guarantee of conformity.6
As based upon the above, two observations may be made. The first is that under the national laws pertaining to international trade and sale of goods contracts, the seller, Susan, is in direct and immediate violation of her contractual obligation consequent to the fact that the goods delivered to the buyer, Kate, did not conform with the nature and description of the goods outlined in the contract. Irrespective of Susan's opinion pertaining to the marketability of a gin-drinking versus a mineral water drinking book, the fact is that she entered into a contract for the sale of the former but delivered the latter. In the second place, when assessed from the perspective of international trade laws, and as specified by the previously discussed Article 35, Susan has violated the terms of the contract she entered into with Kate insofar as she filed to deliver the specified good. Hence, from both the national and the international perspectives, Susan has inarguably