Ecn 3000
International Law
Case: Biddel brothers v e Clemens horst ( CIF sales contract)
Questions:
(1) Who are the parties?
(2) Where are the parties from?
(3) What is the issue of the problem in this case? ( What are they fighting about?)
(4) What is the outcome( what happens at the end of the case who wins?)
Summarize/Question answers:
(1) We are talking about two parties. The seller of goods, in this case we talk about hops. and the buyer of the goods. The Goods will be shipped from point A to point B.
(2) The seller is sending the goods on the ship from San Francisco. And the buyer is in Sunderland expecting the goods.
(3) The problem where the Seller and the Buyer are dealing with is a CIF contract between the two parties, when goods are ready to ship. The buyer want goods from another place/country. And want to inspect the goods when they are ready to leave. But when the buyer had not the oppurtunity to inspect the goods he refused to pay. The San Francisco merchants exchange showed the buyer a certificate of inspecting the goods, but the buyer doenst agreed wit it. He want to inspect the goods by himself.
As a result of that refused the seller to ship the goods. And after that the seller counterclaimed for the buyers refusal to pay on the documents. The lower court ruled in for the defendant buyer. But the court of appeal came back on that decicison and called that the judgement was reversed. So the buyer must pay for the hops whether they arrived of not.
(4) It is a difficult situation. Because on one hand you dont see the problem for the seller to wait for the payment, when the buyer has seen the goods. But there are some answers against that. That are discussed in the case. And finally we are coming to the answer that the Plaintiffs( buyer) claim should be dismissed. Because he have the bill of lading and the policy of insurance of the goods when they are on the sea.
Case: Biddel brothers v e Clemens horst ( CIF sales contract)
Questions:
(1) Who are the parties?
(2) Where are the parties from?
(3) What is the issue of the problem in this case? ( What are they fighting about?)
(4) What is the outcome( what happens at the end of the case who wins?)
Summarize/Question answers:
(1) We are talking about two parties. The seller of goods, in this case we talk about hops. and the buyer of the goods. The Goods will be shipped from point A to point B.
(2) The seller is sending the goods on the ship from San Francisco. And the buyer is in Sunderland expecting the goods.
(3) The problem where the Seller and the Buyer are dealing with is a CIF contract between the two parties, when goods are ready to ship. The buyer want goods from another place/country. And want to inspect the goods when they are ready to leave. But when the buyer had not the oppurtunity to inspect the goods he refused to pay. The San Francisco merchants exchange showed the buyer a certificate of inspecting the goods, but the buyer doenst agreed wit it. He want to inspect the goods by himself.
As a result of that refused the seller to ship the goods. And after that the seller counterclaimed for the buyers refusal to pay on the documents. The lower court ruled in for the defendant buyer. But the court of appeal came back on that decicison and called that the judgement was reversed. So the buyer must pay for the hops whether they arrived of not.
(4) It is a difficult situation. Because on one hand you dont see the problem for the seller to wait for the payment, when the buyer has seen the goods. But there are some answers against that. That are discussed in the case. And finally we are coming to the answer that the Plaintiffs( buyer) claim should be dismissed. Because he have the bill of lading and the policy of insurance of the goods when they are on the sea.