17 The reason why the Claimants belatedly hit upon the changed stance of extension in the date of inspection is not difficult to discover. They could not offer inspection for the simple reason that the rig was not at all ready for inspection. They never intimated the Respondents that the rig is ready for inspection and that respondents should inspect it. The answers given in cross-examination by Sunil Arora, the Claimant's witness, to Questions 14,15, 56 and 57 show that the rig was still in Brazil on 12th January 2006. The witness has also stated in reply to questions 167, 170, 171, 172 and 173 that the rig was to be taken to Dubai for upgradation, that Hameria Port sharjha was fixed in March, 2003 by the Claimants for upgradation and that it was not known how much time it would nave taken for upgradation. Indeed, the Claimants informed the Respondents by their letter dated 13th June 2003 that refurbishment work on the rig at Brazilian port was in full swing. Thus, even after 150 days, the rig was not ready for inspection. The plea of the Claimants that the rig was in transit to Dubai or that the rig was being loaded on the barge and was ready to leave Brazil is factually incorrect. Since the Claimants failed to mobilize the rig by 30th September 2003, the contract stood terminated, whereupon the Respondents justifiably gave intimation to the Claimants of such termination by their letter dated 28th October 2003.
