- First document, is the analysis o

- First document, is the analysis of metallic content of the material we shipped.
Based on this, the analysis clearly shows that material arrived with much higher copper content than it was sold with.
We sold basis of 94% Cu content, and material arrived with 97.88% copper content.
- Second document, is the analysis of non-metallic content of the material we shipped
3 samples were made, out of which 2 came with 2% and 1 came with 1.6%.
Thus average non-metallic content is 1.9% for the material.
This is no-where near the intial claim of 5-6% informed by customer.
its also no-where near the reduced figure customer sent to settle this claim at 4%.

So clearly customers are receiving much better quality material than they are buying, but they are not informing us of this or compensating us for this.
We are not asking for compensation for better quality we shipped.
But certainly we do not expect customers to claim over material that is better than expected.

All in all, you can see that customer cleary overstated this claim and is blowing it out of proportion.
% of non metallic is much more in line with the 1-2% I mentioned in all my previous emails.
In addition to this, considering that analysis purely on metallic content gave a 97.88% copper content, if you then add to this the non-metallic portion and deduce it purely on the copper %, customer still received a 95.89% Copper Content material. (97.88% - 1.9%)

With that in mind, there is absolutely no basis at all for customer to raise a claim on the material received.
In fact, customer should then consider compensating Royce for the cost of making the analysis, in addition to the fact that they received a material which has nearly 2% more copper content than it was agreed to.

結果 (繁體中文) 1:

-第一份檔，是我們運材料的金屬含量的分析。在此基礎，分析清楚地表明，材料來到多高的含銅量比它被賣與。我們出售的 94%銅含量，基礎和材料到達與 97.88%銅含量。-第二個檔，是我們運的材料的非金屬含量的分析3 樣品，出哪些 2 附帶 2%和 1 了 1.6%。因此平均非金屬含量是材料的 1.9%。這是無何附近的初始索賠的通知客戶的 5-6%。其也無何附近的減少的圖客戶派去解決這項索賠在 4%。如此清楚顧客受到很多更好的品質材料比他們購買，但他們都不通知我們這或補償我們這。我們不要求更好的品質，我們運賠償。但我們並不期待客戶宣稱超過比預期更好的材料。一切的一切，你可以看到該客戶佳利誇大了這種說法和正在把它吹不成比例。%是非金屬的更符合我在我以前的電子郵件中提到的 1-2%。此外，考慮到那純粹金屬含量的分析給 97.88%含銅量，如果你然後將添加到這的非金屬部分和純粹的銅 %中推斷出結論，客戶仍然收到 95.89%銅含量材料。（97.88%-1.9%）這一點，就絕對沒有基礎在一切為了客戶提出要求收到的材料。事實上，客戶應然後考慮羅伊斯彌補成本，使分析，還有他們收到材料已近 2%更銅含量比它同意這一事實。

結果 (繁體中文) 2:

-第一文檔，是我們運材料的金屬含量的分析
在此基礎上，分 ​​析清楚地表明，材料到達高得多的銅含量大於它與銷售。
我們出售的94％的Cu含量的基礎上，和材料到達以97.88％的銅含量。
-第二文件，是我們運材料的非金屬內容分析
3樣品製成，其中2與2％來到和1來到與1.6％。
因此，平均非金屬內容是為材質的1.9％，
這是沒有在那裡的5-6％的intial索賠由客戶告知附近，
其也無近的地方發出的4％來解決這種說法。減少的數字客戶所以很明顯客戶收到更好比他們買的，但他們沒有通知我們的這個或補償我們這種品質的材料。我們不是在要求更好的質量，我們發貨的賠償。但我們肯定不希望客戶聲稱對材料比預期的要好。總而言之，你可以看到誇大這種說法客戶克利並吹出來的比例。非金屬％的是與我在以前所有的郵件中提到的1-2％的線路等等。除此之外，考慮到這一分析純粹的金 ​​屬含量給予了97.88％的銅含量，如果再添加到該非金屬部分和純推斷出這一點在銅％，客戶仍獲得了95.89％的銅含量的材料。（97.88％ - 1.9％），考慮到這一點，是絕對沒有根據的一切為客戶提高對收到的材料提出索賠。事實上，客戶應該再考慮補償羅伊斯作出了分析的成本，除了他們收到具有比商定更近2％的銅含量的材料的事實。