THIRD ISSUE: RESPONDENT has valid grounds for avoidance of the Sales Contract on 7 July 2014 and 9 July 2014
B.CLAIMANT did breach the Sales Contract on 4 July 2014 and 8 July 2014
I. CLAIMANT breached the Sales Contract for the inconsistency between the Sales Contract and the letter of Credit opened on 4 July 2014
1. The CISG applies to the merits of the case at issue
Pursuant to Article 20 of the Sales Contract [Cl. Exh.1, p. 7], “The contract, including this clause, shall be governed by the law of Danubia”. As Danubia is a Contracting State to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter CISG) [R.A., p. 5, para. 18], the Convention applies automatically to the contract despite the fact that …show more content…
However, it is not sufficient to deal with the problem of computation the deadline of issuance of the Letter of Credit in the case at issue. The Danubia general law of contract is silent on the issue. It does not contain any rules on calculating time limits beyond the adoption of Art.1.12 UNIDROIT Principles [PO 2, p. 69, para. 44]. Under Art.1.12 (3) of this rule, “the relevant time zone is that of the place of business of the party setting the time, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise” while it is RESPONDENT that set the time. As a consequence, the relevant time zone is Mediterraneo Standard Time (hereinafter MST). Further, in Mediterraneo, the day of the occurrence of a triggering event is counted in [PO 2, p. 69, para. 44]. It is 5 minutes late according to the way above calculating the deadline. Since the notice of transport arrived at 00:05 MST on 9 July 2014[PO 2, p. 66, para. 27], while the receipt of the notice of transport is 25 June 2014[Cl. Exh.2, p. 8]. Besides, for the reason that the Letter of Credit was faxed outside RESPONDENT’s business hour [Ans.R, p. 35, para. 15] as well, CLAIMANT breached the Sales Contract for its late delivery of the second Letter of
B.CLAIMANT did breach the Sales Contract on 4 July 2014 and 8 July 2014
I. CLAIMANT breached the Sales Contract for the inconsistency between the Sales Contract and the letter of Credit opened on 4 July 2014
1. The CISG applies to the merits of the case at issue
Pursuant to Article 20 of the Sales Contract [Cl. Exh.1, p. 7], “The contract, including this clause, shall be governed by the law of Danubia”. As Danubia is a Contracting State to the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter CISG) [R.A., p. 5, para. 18], the Convention applies automatically to the contract despite the fact that …show more content…
However, it is not sufficient to deal with the problem of computation the deadline of issuance of the Letter of Credit in the case at issue. The Danubia general law of contract is silent on the issue. It does not contain any rules on calculating time limits beyond the adoption of Art.1.12 UNIDROIT Principles [PO 2, p. 69, para. 44]. Under Art.1.12 (3) of this rule, “the relevant time zone is that of the place of business of the party setting the time, unless the circumstances indicate otherwise” while it is RESPONDENT that set the time. As a consequence, the relevant time zone is Mediterraneo Standard Time (hereinafter MST). Further, in Mediterraneo, the day of the occurrence of a triggering event is counted in [PO 2, p. 69, para. 44]. It is 5 minutes late according to the way above calculating the deadline. Since the notice of transport arrived at 00:05 MST on 9 July 2014[PO 2, p. 66, para. 27], while the receipt of the notice of transport is 25 June 2014[Cl. Exh.2, p. 8]. Besides, for the reason that the Letter of Credit was faxed outside RESPONDENT’s business hour [Ans.R, p. 35, para. 15] as well, CLAIMANT breached the Sales Contract for its late delivery of the second Letter of