Moonbeam and Tang both have rights and obligations regarding the June instalment as one buyer’s right is a seller’s obligation and vice versa.
Both parties are contracting states and thus the Contracts for International Sale of Goods (CISG) is applicable to this question.
A contract is formed when acceptance of an offer is met according to the CISG. As per Art14 Moonbeam clearly accepts Tang’s offer to purchase the hairdryers as Moonbeam’s intent to be bound is evident through agreeing to sell the hairdryers and is sufficiently definite - the quantity of 5,000 is specified and the price can be assumed as being included in the proposal, and it can be implied the parties made reference to the price generally charged for such goods. Acceptance …show more content…
Yet, Tang never examined the goods. It cannot rely on Art38(3) as outlined in the Lambskin coat case wherein the Liechtenstein buyer relied on its customer to complain and didn’t examine the goods even though it was stored in its warehouse. Tang too did not examine the hairdryers but relied on its customers to complain of the non-conformity and Tang clearly had the hairdryers within its sphere of control. Thus Art38 is not …show more content…
Tang does give notice within a reasonable timeframe, 12 days (assuming discovery was 4 June). This is within the Noble Month and the Austrian 14 day standard. However the notice for specificity was insufficient as expressed in the Fashion Goods case, general allegations such as the ones given by Tang are not specific enough.
Tang cannot rely on Art39 and thus must look towards Art40 where Moonbeam cannot rely on the above two provisions if it could not have been unaware of the non-conformity. Similar to the Maggots case, Moonbeam is the manufacturing company and ought to have known and could not have been unaware of the non-conformity.
Furthermore, the June instalment is a fundamental breach according to Art25 as it substantially deprived Tang - it was non-merchantable (contrasting the Cobalt Sulphate case) because the hairdryers could not be used as general hairdryers are used and the instance of a hairdryer blowing up. Thus customers would not buy it. It was foreseeable on Moonbeam’s behalf that such a breach would cause this result. Avoidance as a is possible for the June instalment but Tang must first notify Moonbeam of its intention to avoid before Tang may declare the contract avoided. (art
Both parties are contracting states and thus the Contracts for International Sale of Goods (CISG) is applicable to this question.
A contract is formed when acceptance of an offer is met according to the CISG. As per Art14 Moonbeam clearly accepts Tang’s offer to purchase the hairdryers as Moonbeam’s intent to be bound is evident through agreeing to sell the hairdryers and is sufficiently definite - the quantity of 5,000 is specified and the price can be assumed as being included in the proposal, and it can be implied the parties made reference to the price generally charged for such goods. Acceptance …show more content…
Yet, Tang never examined the goods. It cannot rely on Art38(3) as outlined in the Lambskin coat case wherein the Liechtenstein buyer relied on its customer to complain and didn’t examine the goods even though it was stored in its warehouse. Tang too did not examine the hairdryers but relied on its customers to complain of the non-conformity and Tang clearly had the hairdryers within its sphere of control. Thus Art38 is not …show more content…
Tang does give notice within a reasonable timeframe, 12 days (assuming discovery was 4 June). This is within the Noble Month and the Austrian 14 day standard. However the notice for specificity was insufficient as expressed in the Fashion Goods case, general allegations such as the ones given by Tang are not specific enough.
Tang cannot rely on Art39 and thus must look towards Art40 where Moonbeam cannot rely on the above two provisions if it could not have been unaware of the non-conformity. Similar to the Maggots case, Moonbeam is the manufacturing company and ought to have known and could not have been unaware of the non-conformity.
Furthermore, the June instalment is a fundamental breach according to Art25 as it substantially deprived Tang - it was non-merchantable (contrasting the Cobalt Sulphate case) because the hairdryers could not be used as general hairdryers are used and the instance of a hairdryer blowing up. Thus customers would not buy it. It was foreseeable on Moonbeam’s behalf that such a breach would cause this result. Avoidance as a is possible for the June instalment but Tang must first notify Moonbeam of its intention to avoid before Tang may declare the contract avoided. (art