Satu PitkänenInternational Business Law CISG/Business contracts
CASES
Analyze under the CISG the following cases:
1.
A Swedish reindeer farmer phones a Danish retailer and offers ten kilograms of reindeer meat at a discount price. The retailer tells that he is very interested in the offer and he will probably get back to the subject very soon. After doing some calculations he, thirty minutes later, calls the farmer and tells that he accepts the offer. Now the farmer, however, tells that he already sold the meat to a Norwegian retailer. The Danish retailer demands the meat at the discount price since he has made arrangements counting on the offer, and threatens the farmer with action for damages. Analyze the case.
2.
Wilhelm Tell Inc. received a letter in their mail on January 1 offering to sell them 6,000 components for $25 apiece. Seller’s letter closed with the following statement: ”I know that this offer is so attractive that I will assume that you accept it unless I hear otherwise by January 31." Wilhelm Tell Inc. did not reply. Seller shipped the components on February 1. What are the responsibilities of Wilhelm Tell Inc.?
3.
A US company Moneymakers Inc., in a letter, offered to sell coffee beans to British Coffeemill Ltd. After Coffeemill mailed an acceptance, the market price for coffee began to fall. Coffeemill immediately contracted to buy coffee at a lower price from another supplier and telegraphed a rejection to Moneymakers.
a) Can Coffeemill withdraw the acceptance?
b) If the British common law was applied instead of the CISG, would the solution be different?
4.
Hejsan Ab from Sweden has offered to sell computers at € 500 to a French company Tresbien SA. The offer is valid until May 30. On May 15 Tresbien SA sends an email rejecting the offer. However, they change their mind and send May 30 a letter with an order of 20 computers. Hejsan Ab answers now that they have raised the price by € 100. Your comments?
5.
Suspenders Inc. received a letter in their mail on January 1 offering to sell them 1,500 components XYZ for $20 apiece, delivery CIF Boston. The offer was due on Jan 30. Suspenders Inc. replied immediately: “According to your offer, we order 1,250 of components XYZ for $20 apiece, delivered CIF Boston.
On January 30 however, there was no delivery for Suspenders at the Boston port. What are the rights of the company?
6.
Heggblade-Marguelas-Tenneco (HMT) from Mexico contracted to deliver 100,000 hundredweight sacks of potatoes to Bell Brand Foods, an American subsidiary of Sunshine Biscuit, over a period of several months. HMT had recently been formed through the merger of a potato grower and a company that marketed agricultural products. This contract was HMT's first experience with marketing processing potatoes.
Because processing potato contracts are executed many months before the harvest season, the custom in the processing potato industry was to treat the quantity called for in a contract solely as a reasonable estimate of the buyers' needs based on their customers' demands and the ability of the growers to supply. As a result of a decline in demand for Bell Brand potatoes, it was able to take only 60,000 hundredweight sacks from HMT. When HMT sued for damages for breach of contract, Bell Brand argued its contractual obligation was reduced by trade usage. HMT argued that since the quantity terms in the contract were definite and unambiguous, there was no reason to fall back on trade usage.