Marketing
Assignments IBL2 November 2009-11-24
All subgroups number 1:
Answer the following questions: a. end of chapter 10 questions number 1, 4, 5 and 6 b. give your opinion on the following situation:
Intermediary Oil Co. (IOC) of Country A purchased fuel oil that was at sea aboard a tanker. IOC then contracted to sell the oil to Big City Power Co. (BCPC) in Country B. At the time that IOC purchased the cargo of fuel oil, it received a certificate from the foreign refinery that had produced the oil certifying that its sulfur content was 0.52 percent. When IOC contracted to sell the oil to BCPC, IOC stated that the sulfur content of the oil was 0.5 percent (IOC rounded off the 0.52 percent as was the custom in the trade).
During its negotiations with BCPC, IOC learned that BCPC was allowed by local regulations to burn oil containing up to 1.0 percent sulfur and that BCPC mixed the oils that it received containing greater or lesser percentages to maintain that amount. When the tanker arrived with the oil at BCPC’s storage depot, the oil’s sulfur content proved to be 0.92 percent. BCPC rejected the shipment. IOC immediately offered BCPC a reduced price, but BCPC rejected this.
The next day IOC offered to cure the defective shipment by substituting conforming oil that was on a tanker that was due to arrive approximately 4 weeks after the original delivery date. BCPC rejected this offer to cure. IOC then sued for breach of contract. The trial court, applying the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as the governing law, held for IOC, concluding that IOC’s timely offer to cure had been improperly rejected and that BCPC was required to accept the substitute shipment. BCPC appealed. Should the appeals court affirm?
All subgroups number 2:
Give your opinion on and discuss the two following situations:
Situation 1:
Mellow Wine Co. of Country C (in Europe) produces and exports wines. It sold
All subgroups number 1:
Answer the following questions: a. end of chapter 10 questions number 1, 4, 5 and 6 b. give your opinion on the following situation:
Intermediary Oil Co. (IOC) of Country A purchased fuel oil that was at sea aboard a tanker. IOC then contracted to sell the oil to Big City Power Co. (BCPC) in Country B. At the time that IOC purchased the cargo of fuel oil, it received a certificate from the foreign refinery that had produced the oil certifying that its sulfur content was 0.52 percent. When IOC contracted to sell the oil to BCPC, IOC stated that the sulfur content of the oil was 0.5 percent (IOC rounded off the 0.52 percent as was the custom in the trade).
During its negotiations with BCPC, IOC learned that BCPC was allowed by local regulations to burn oil containing up to 1.0 percent sulfur and that BCPC mixed the oils that it received containing greater or lesser percentages to maintain that amount. When the tanker arrived with the oil at BCPC’s storage depot, the oil’s sulfur content proved to be 0.92 percent. BCPC rejected the shipment. IOC immediately offered BCPC a reduced price, but BCPC rejected this.
The next day IOC offered to cure the defective shipment by substituting conforming oil that was on a tanker that was due to arrive approximately 4 weeks after the original delivery date. BCPC rejected this offer to cure. IOC then sued for breach of contract. The trial court, applying the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as the governing law, held for IOC, concluding that IOC’s timely offer to cure had been improperly rejected and that BCPC was required to accept the substitute shipment. BCPC appealed. Should the appeals court affirm?
All subgroups number 2:
Give your opinion on and discuss the two following situations:
Situation 1:
Mellow Wine Co. of Country C (in Europe) produces and exports wines. It sold