Caveat Emptor Reversed

Just like international investors having a care where they put their investments, ensuring that there is stability and a better-than-average-chance that their investment will pay off, manufacturers of products that are unique and ground-breaking, and purpose-manufactured should also be concerned, when they're dealing with large amounts of profit, that they supply governments who will not renege on their obligation to pay for what they order.

CODE Inc., a Canadian manufacturer of indelible ink used in countries of the world where the population is largely uneducated, cannot read or write, so that an ink-stained digit demonstrates the pride of having voted, is one of those unique producers of a unique product.  It is now suing the Independent High Electoral Commission of Iraq for an unpaid invoice.

It won a contract to supply election materials to Iraq during its 2009 elections.  Supplies were inclusive of 84,000 bottles of indelible ink used at polling stations.  The ink is comprised with silver nitrate staining skin for weeks - now viewed as symbolism for equality for women, permitted to vote in the last election.  Also included were 11,000 training kits, 44,000 polling station kits and 42,000 custom stamps.

Payment for most of the supplies was duly forwarded to CODE Inc., in acknowledgement of most of the payment for its $9.4-million contract.  The company awaited the concluding payment of almost one million, but it never did materialize.  It has since asked a Canadian court to intervene, ordering Iraqi officials to come to Ottawa for cross-examination.

"Baghdad is a dangerous city with widespread risk of death and serious injuries to civilians, even within the Green zone.  Consequently, CODE Inc. is not prepared to allow any of its employees or any of its lawyers to travel to Baghdad", wrote Master Pierre Roger of the Ontario court, adjudicating the motion.

Early on in the matter, two CODE representatives did travel to Baghdad in the search of restitution.  "Bodyguards had to be employed and bullet-proof vests were being worn and helmets and the whole thing.  It is not worth doing that just to collect some money if there are other avenues available.  We made a company decision not to repeat it.", said lawyer Alan Riddell.

That old adage of 'once burnt, twice shy', should apply here.  The company should make a decision not to repeat its decision to accept a contract to supply materials to a country like Iraq, in flux and turmoil; otherwise it should be acknowledged that they're taking an uninformed and hopeful gamble with their product, their time, their investment.