View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!Introducing SlideShare for AndroidExplore all your favorite topics in the SlideShare appGet the SlideShare app to Save for Later — even offline
View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new Android app!View stunning SlideShares in full-screen with the new iOS app!
The buyer informed Satisfied with But Some problems representatives stated particularly suited to transfer printing This is a warranty
Schmitz PMD i ii Ordered 15 ， 000 meters Testing sample generally satisfied but still some problems Found more problems But was encouraged to continue printing Ordered 60 ， 000 meters Apparent continuing problems
Plaintiff Schmitz Defendant Rockland sue Breach of warranty Inspect 15% of the fabric lower grade or seconds
(1) Whether the fabric was fit for the purposes warranted?
Under the article 35 of the CISG……
Under the article 35 (2) of the CISG……
The seller warranted that the fabric was fit for transfer printing, that the fabric printed in a normal and competent way, and that the resulting printed was unsatisfactory, so the fabric was unfit for the purpose warranted.
Seller argues : Buyer must show both the existence and the nature of the defect. Buyer argues : It need show is that the goods were unfit for the particular purpose warranted The court holds that: Under either CISG or Maryland Law, the buyer may prevail Seller counters that: This is improperly shifts the burden of proof …… (2) Whether the plaintiff need to prove the nature of the defect? The court holds that : Seller’s concerns are misplaced ^o^
（ 3 ） Whether the buyer had relied on the warranty? Art.35(2)(b… The seller argues: Buyer cannot recover on such a warranty because ……
The court holds that:
The buyer relied on the statements of seller’s representative that ……
Buyer continued to print the fabric with the express consent of seller after ……
Under the CISG, the fabric was not fit for the purposes for which it was intended. The exact nature of the fabric’s defect need not be proved. It was sufficient that the plaintiff prove that it had reasonably relied on the defendant’s representations that the fabric was suitable for transfer printing, and that it was not.