MEMORANDUM FOR CLAIMANT

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
samples for future contracts. The letter sent to Mr. Black on 7 December 2000 announcing the
first agreement between CLAIMANT and RESPONDENT points out that the discount of 8%
is the highest discount ever given by CLAIMANT to any customer for any purchase. It is
dealt with in a section separated from the announcement of the prospect of a long term
relationship [cf. CLAIMANT’s Exhibit No. 1]. Therefore, Mr. Black could not have been
unaware that the price stated in the written contract reflecting the 8% discount was an
incentive offer only and not meant to govern all subsequent contracts to be concluded by the
parties.
69. Since RESPONDENT knew that the 8% discount was unusually high and the list price
already low [cf. CLAIMANT’s Exhibit No. 1], RESPONDENT could not have been unaware
of its incentive nature. Also, as sales manager of a large international company, Mr. Black
could not have been unaware that special discounts are given in the polypropylene market for
special reasons such as first time orders [cf. Procedural Order No. 2, Clarification No. 40].
70. In his letter of 7 December 2000 Mr. Storck pointed out that CLAIMANT’s discount to
favored customers is 4%. In the same letter he promised that RESPONDENT would always
receive CLAIMANT's best price, since a long term business relationship was expected
[CLAIMANT’s Exhibit No. 1]. When Mr. Black subsequently called Mr. Storck to place an
order with CLAIMANT, they moved along the expected line of a long term
relationship. Thus, Mr. Black could expect Mr. Storck to keep his promise and receive the
best price. A best price is received as long as no other customer is given a better price.
CLAIMANT never granted a discount higher than 4% to any customer except on first orders
as incentive offers [cf. Procedural Order No. 2, Clarification No. 38, Procedural Order
No. 3, Clarification No. 5]. Therefore, a 4% discount was CLAIMANT’s best price and by
granting 4% to RESPONDENT Mr. Storck kept his promise. Since RESPONDENT knew that
CLAIMANT grants a 4% discount to favored customers, RESPONDENT could not have
been unaware that a 4% discount reflected CLAIMANT’s best price. Consequently,
Mr. Black could not have been unaware of Mr. Storck's intent to grant a 4% discount.
c. Neither Mr. Storck nor any other reasonable person could have been aware of
Mr. Black's intent to contract with a discount of 8% from the list price
71. Mr. Storck had no reason to believe that Mr. Black was only willing to contract with
CLAIMANT in the event that an 8% discount was accepted. Mr. Black first revealed his
25