Seller agreed to ship 10,000 tons of potatoes FOB Tacoma, Washington, to Buyer in Japan. Buyer designated the SS Russet to take delivery at pier 7 in Tacoma. On the agreed date for delivery, Seller delivered the potatoes to pier 7, but the ship was not at the pier. Because another ship using the pier was slow in loading, the Russet had to anchor at a mooring buoy in the harbor and Seller had to arrange for a lighter to transport the potatoes in containers to the ship. The lighter tied up alongside the Russet and a cable from the ship' s boom was attached to the first container. As the container began to cross the ship' s rail the cable snapped. The container then fell on the rail, teetered back and forth for awhile, and finally crashed down the side of the ship and capsized the lighter. All of the potatoes were dumped into the sea. Buyer now sues Seller for failure to make delivery. Is Seller liable? 这段到底在说什么，看不懂啊，麻烦翻译一下，谢谢！！
还有一段，谢谢！！！New York Merchandising Company (NYMCO) imported goods produced by C-ART in Hong Kong. The goods were shipped on the Hong Kong Island Lines (carrier). The parties prior course of dealings had been for the carrier to release the goods to NYMCO on its presentation of a "bank guarantee. " These bank guarantees released the carrier from liability for any misdelivery. On this occasion, however, the carrier released the goods upon NYMCO's corporate guarantee of payment. Soon thereafter, NYMCO filed for bankruptcy. C-ART sued the carrier to recover the money owed for the goods. The carrier argued that it was not liable for misdelivery because NYMCO had good title to the goods from the time they were shipped in Hong Kong. Do you agree with this argument? The carrier also claims that the bills of lading are not valid because the importer NYMCO was insolvent. What is wrong with this argument?