• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Schmitz.V.Rockland
 

Schmitz.V.Rockland

on

  • 597 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
597
Views on SlideShare
597
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Schmitz.V.Rockland Schmitz.V.Rockland Presentation Transcript

    • Schmitz- werke v. Rockland 吴文曼 陈婉文 潘萧萧 彭春萍 梁佩玲 曾凡明
    • facts
      • Buyer (plaintiff)
      • Schmitz
      • Germany
      • Seller ( defendant ) Rockland
      • USA
      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
    • Legal issue
      • Whether the contract is a breach of warranty?
      • Ⅰ . Whether the fabric was fit for the purposes warranted?
      • Ⅱ . Whether the plaintiff need to prove the exact nature of the defect?
      • Ⅲ . Whether the buyer had relied on the warranty?
    • Reasoning
      • (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 ……
    • Decision
      • 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.
    • Comment
      • The law is found in the UCC
      • provisions are similar
      • Notable difference
      • The U.S. law : places restriction parties’ ability to implied warranty
      • CISG : contains no provisions
      • Purpose :preserve freedom
      • attention
    • Thank you !!!