With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". bills of lading (900 vs. 1800); 5) the description of the goods in the inspection document as “New Orleans” rather than “New, Original”; 6) the inconsistency in the number of boxes in the shipment both within the packing list and in relation to the bills of lading; 7) the packing list’s specification of a shipment date seven days after the list was purportedly created; and 8) the inconsistency between the weight of the goods listed in the packing list, 38,000 lbs., and the weight listed in the bills of lading, 64,800 lbs. Courts have found substantial compliance lacking in situations where the beneficiary’s documents contained much less significant and extensive discrepancies than are present here. See, e.g., Brul v. MidAmerican Bank & Trust Co., 820 F.Supp. 1311, 1313-14 (D.Kan.1993) (<HOLDING>); Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat’l Bank v.

A: holding that plaintiff had standing where the beneficiary of a letter of credit had assigned to plaintiff its cause of action for wrongful dishonor of the letter of credit
B: holding that a bank fee for a letter of credit to secure a stay pending appeal was not a taxable cost where no statute or court rule allowed such a cost and where the letter of credit was unnecessary and therefore a discretionary expense to which the opposing party had objected
C: holding that documents did not substantially comply where copies of letter of credit and promissory note were submitted and letter of credit required originals
D: holding that a party providing a letter of credit fails at its peril to include in the letter language restricting honor and payment of the credit
C.