In international grain trade, rejecting cargo is not simply a matter of saying no. It is a legal act with consequences. Do it without proper grounds and you become the party in breach.
The cargo arrived in a condition that wasn't expected. Or clearly wasn't what was contracted for. Or was almost right — but something is plainly off.
The buyer wants to reject. Or thinks he wants to. Or already has — and is now the defendant.
Real disputes don't look like textbook examples. They look like this:
◦ 9,500 tonnes of soya bean meal. One figure in one paragraph of the contract. A seven-figure dispute.
◦ 500 tonnes of beans. 1.8% of the wrong variety. The House of Lords. Because of beans.
◦ 8,000 tonnes of barley. Admixtures at 4.1% against a contractual maximum of 4%. The buyer was certain he was right. He was not.
◦ Wheat with one extra word in the description. An inspector who made a mistake. A court that said: the mistake doesn't count.
The line between "entitled to reject" and "not entitled" is sometimes a single word. A single clause. A single cross-reference to a standard proforma.
These were real transactions. Real money. Real people who were absolutely certain the contract was on their side.
Rejection is a legal act, not a commercial preference. Before rejecting, establish the legal basis — not just the commercial grievance. The consequences of getting it wrong fall entirely on the party who rejected.