Question

急。。。帮忙翻译这段文章！不要在线翻译的，我试过，不通顺的

Kwei Tek Chao VS British Traders and Shippers Ltd.，(1954)British Traders and Shippers Ltd. sold goods to Kwei Tek Chao who were merchants, the shipment shown on the bill of lading was forged to show a shipment in October,but British Traders were ignorant of it and not party to the forgery. All the same they took delivery of the goods,but as the market had fallen,were unable to sell the goods. It was held that:
the bill of lading though forged,was not a nullity as the forged did not go to the root of the contract; and
Kwei Tek Chao although they had not rejected the documents still had a right to reject the goods and could recover the difference between the contract price and the market price.
However,if the buyer accepts the documents knowing that they are not in order he is stopped from later trying to reject them.

Answer 1

桂康超VS英国商人和托运人有限公司，（1954年）英国商人和货主有限公司桂康超，谁是商人，提单上显示的装运出售的商品是伪造的，显示在10月装运，但英国商人它的无知，而不是一方伪造。所有相同的，他们交付货物，但随着市场下跌，是不能出售的商品。有人认为：
法案虽然伪造的提单，是无效的，因为伪造合同的根源没有去;
桂康超，虽然他们没有拒绝的文件仍然有权利拒收货物，并可以收回的合同价格和市场价格之间的差额。
但是，如果买方知道，他们不是为了他停止后试图拒绝他们接受的文件。