International Trade Law: a Problem Question
In his letter dated 25th May 2008, Jack Williams stated that he believed Frank Wu to be in breach of several contracts, and that he would be pursuing this in the manner stipulated in the contract, that being Arbitration in accordance with the Swiss Rules of Arbitration. However, in the same letter Mr Williams stated that he would soon commence actions against Mr Wu in the Supreme Court of Victoria, thus leaving us with much ambiguity as to the applicable judiciary. However, regardless of where and before who the matter is heard, the substantive issues of law are still the same. Mr Williams is refusing to pay Mr Wu, as he is holding him to be in breach of several contractual obligations.
Contractual Precedence
It seems as though Mr Williams believes that Mr Wu is in breach of contract due to the non-delivery of goods, as is stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) . However, the contract between Mr Williams and Mr Wu states that the conditions as to delivery are ex-warehouse, meaning that by placing the goods in a warehouse accessible to Mr Williams, Mr Wu has completed his obligations as they pertain to delivery of the drill. And as a contractual clause will always take precedent over any relevant law expect in the case of mandatory law, the contractual clause as to the delivery conditions stands.
Non – Delivery and Damages
On the 15th April, Mr Williams requested Mr Wu compensate him for the loss of the drilling machine, despite the fact that the ex-warehouse delivery clause in the contract automatically removes any liability for Mr Wu. However, the police have found the theft to be an inside job, thus carried out either by Mr Wu himself, or his employees. Whilst Mr Wu maintains he was not responsible for the theft, any criminal worth their salt would continue to maintain their innocence even in the case of guilt, and thus we cannot be sure. The issue of liability could be reopened if
Contractual Precedence
It seems as though Mr Williams believes that Mr Wu is in breach of contract due to the non-delivery of goods, as is stipulated in the United Nations Convention on the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) . However, the contract between Mr Williams and Mr Wu states that the conditions as to delivery are ex-warehouse, meaning that by placing the goods in a warehouse accessible to Mr Williams, Mr Wu has completed his obligations as they pertain to delivery of the drill. And as a contractual clause will always take precedent over any relevant law expect in the case of mandatory law, the contractual clause as to the delivery conditions stands.
Non – Delivery and Damages
On the 15th April, Mr Williams requested Mr Wu compensate him for the loss of the drilling machine, despite the fact that the ex-warehouse delivery clause in the contract automatically removes any liability for Mr Wu. However, the police have found the theft to be an inside job, thus carried out either by Mr Wu himself, or his employees. Whilst Mr Wu maintains he was not responsible for the theft, any criminal worth their salt would continue to maintain their innocence even in the case of guilt, and thus we cannot be sure. The issue of liability could be reopened if