Claimant Case Study

2. Pursuant to Art. 35(1) of the CISG, Claimant is obliged to deliver goods of the quantity, quality and description prescribed in the contract. Thus, the conformity of goods with quality standards set in the contract is a necessary obligation. The aforementioned submission is based on two causations; The goods provided by Claimant were not in conformity with Respondent’s ethical standards. (a.) Respondent’s standards are to be interpreted as a contractual obligation pursuant to the CISG. (b.)
a. The cakes which Claimant provided were not in conformity with Respondent’s ethical standards.
3. The production of the cakes involved ingredients which were not produced ethically nor sustainably, namely the cocoa beans. The production process of the
Consequently, the cakes delivered by Claimant were not in conformity with the terms of the contract as stated in article 35 (1) of the CISG.

II. The chocolate cakes delivered by Claimant were not fit for its specific purpose which Respondent expressed to Claimant as per CISG Art. 35 (2).

10. Respondent impliedly stated in the tender documents that the purpose Respondent sought out of the chocolate cakes was improving its place as a Global Compact company, and thus, for its suppliers to adhere to UNGC principles therein. Respondent hereby submits that the cakes were not suitable for the purpose which was made known to Claimant pursuant to tender document. (a.) Moreover, Respondent relied on Claimant’s commitment to adhere to Respondent’s code of conduct for suppliers and further on its judgment to guarantee as such. (b.)

a. The cakes were not suitable for the purpose which Respondent made known to Claimant, in keeping with Tender
In the present case, Claimant is an expert in the process of procurement as it has a good history over the last five years for supervising its supply chain and during that period there have been no reported cases about a violation of the UN Global Compact Principle by Claimant or any of its suppliers. (P.O.2. para. 34. p. 54.) Additionally, Claimant is an expert in its respective industry, (Ibid, para 34. p. 54; Ex C1) and its product King’s Delight, the one which Respondent initiated its invitation to tender based upon, has won the Cucina Best Cake Award for five consecutive years. (Ex. R2) Moreover, Claimant has more than once assured Respondent that it is committed to ethical and sustainable production (NoA. para. 1; Ex C5; Ex R3;) Thus, it was reasonable for respondent to rely on Claimant’s skill and