The Natural Gas Case
The Natural Gas Case
Introduction
* This case is about the negotiation of buying a gas between two parties involved – the plaintiff a German company and the defendant an Austrian partnership. On the 18th of December 1990 the plaintiff faxed the defendant with an offer to buy 700-800 metric tons. Meanwhile Austria responded that the ship will be from US for delivery to Belgium and the price is $376 per tone. Additionally a letter of credit was required, since both of the parties haven’t seen each other, which will guarantee seller that the buyer will be able to perform a payment. In order for the plaintiff to distribute a letter of credit, the defendant needs to identify the place of the shipment in USA. Additionally the defendant asked for a larger order from the plaintiff, in order for this to be worth it the time. The agreement for a larger order made the plaintiff to contact with a Dutch reseller with an order of 3 000 tones with a price of $381 per tone. On 2-3 January 1991, another information about the place of the shipment was required from the defendant by the plaintiff, because the bank needs it in order to process a letter of credit. However, on the 7th of January 1991 – the defendant announced by fax that the USA supplier is not agreed on exporting to Belgium, therefore the delivery of the propane is canceled. A claim for $141,131 from the plaintiff forwarded the Dutch company for the increased costs. The plaintiff as well as the Dutch gas reseller sued the defendant to cover their increased costs and the loss of the profit. * In this case, the court decision that has been discussed is whether the seller of propane gas had breached its contractual duties by failing to deliver the promised gas, and if the damages were appropriate, or whether it was the buyer’s fault that they did not provide them with the letter of credit. *
Theory – Conceptual Framework
* Plaintiff – the party that institutes a suit in the court *
Introduction
* This case is about the negotiation of buying a gas between two parties involved – the plaintiff a German company and the defendant an Austrian partnership. On the 18th of December 1990 the plaintiff faxed the defendant with an offer to buy 700-800 metric tons. Meanwhile Austria responded that the ship will be from US for delivery to Belgium and the price is $376 per tone. Additionally a letter of credit was required, since both of the parties haven’t seen each other, which will guarantee seller that the buyer will be able to perform a payment. In order for the plaintiff to distribute a letter of credit, the defendant needs to identify the place of the shipment in USA. Additionally the defendant asked for a larger order from the plaintiff, in order for this to be worth it the time. The agreement for a larger order made the plaintiff to contact with a Dutch reseller with an order of 3 000 tones with a price of $381 per tone. On 2-3 January 1991, another information about the place of the shipment was required from the defendant by the plaintiff, because the bank needs it in order to process a letter of credit. However, on the 7th of January 1991 – the defendant announced by fax that the USA supplier is not agreed on exporting to Belgium, therefore the delivery of the propane is canceled. A claim for $141,131 from the plaintiff forwarded the Dutch company for the increased costs. The plaintiff as well as the Dutch gas reseller sued the defendant to cover their increased costs and the loss of the profit. * In this case, the court decision that has been discussed is whether the seller of propane gas had breached its contractual duties by failing to deliver the promised gas, and if the damages were appropriate, or whether it was the buyer’s fault that they did not provide them with the letter of credit. *
Theory – Conceptual Framework
* Plaintiff – the party that institutes a suit in the court *