GRVR ATTORNEYS, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW SPECIALISTS
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact

Court Decisions Reveals The Dangers of Haggling Over International Sales Contracts

1/26/2011

0 Comments

 
The Federal District Court, Southern District of New York, just decided a lawsuit called

Hanwha Corp. v. Cedar Petrochemicals (January 18, 2011) by applying the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods ("CISG").  This case reveals the dangers to parties of a contract when they fail to agree on terms, especially when the court relies on the CIGS.  Often a court will look to industry standards or how the parties reached a meeting of the minds in the past in order to achieve a reasonable resolution in the present, to fill in the blanks, if you will.  But sometimes, the court will find that the parties did not even have a contract and, of course, if there is no contract, the parties cannot sue, and certainly cannot collect, for breach of contract.  

Before this lawsuit, Hanwha had ordered and purchased twenty shipments of petroleum products from Cedar Petrochemicals, and all these transactions went off without a hitch.  On the twenty-first shipment, Hanwha ordered 1,000 metric tons of Toluene at $640 a ton.  The parties, as was their practice, offered and countered offer regarding the applicable law even as they proceeded to finalize the letter of credit.  Hanwa wanted Singapore law to determine any disputes between the parties, and Cedar Petrochemicals wanted New York law.  Hanwha emailed Cedar Petrochemicals saying that there would be no contract unless Singapore law controlled.  Cedar Petrochemicals then informed Hanwha that the deal was off and proceeded to sell the shipment to another party for $790.50 a ton, considerably more than Cedar Petrochemicals was going to pay.

The court decided that CISG must determine the outcome because the parties never agreed which law to apply.  This, by itself, is significant because US courts tend to shy away from the CISG when given the chance.  Then the court reviewed Article 19(1) of the CISG which reads "[a] reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance, but contains additions, limitations or other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counter-offer."  Parties and courts can easily use 19(1) to kill contracts when the parties are dithering.  The court granted summary judgment in Cedar Petrochemical's favor and dismissed the lawsuit, concluding that the parties' inability to agree on the choice of law meant there was no contract.  The court concluded that choice of law was material or essential to the parties.  This decision could have easily gone the other way.  The parties had agreed on price, produce, and delivery, as they had done twenty times before.  That is usually sufficient to get you into court and keep you there (assuming there is sufficient evidence) on a breach of contract theory.  When parties do not clearly set out the choice of law, courts usually resort to canons of construction and other means to apply the correct law.  In fact, the court in this lawsuit did that when it concluded that CISG would control the outcome of the lawsuit.

Although the court does not say this, Hanwha's "no deal" email was what probably torpedoed its chances of recovery.

The lawsuit offers some valuable lessons.  First, a working, consister history between buyer and seller is no substitute for making sure that your contracts are ironclad.  Contracts become issues only when a party breaches, and if you have not protected yourself properly in a final, written form, you risk losing the deal and paying court costs.  Second, if you are still negotiating and haggling, then you probably don't have a contract.  Proceeding as if you do have a contract only invites tragedy.  Finally, US courts are increasingly applying the CISG to international commercial disputes.  If you do not know how the CISG works and you buy or sell over national borders, now is time to find out.
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Oscar Gonzalez

    Principal and a founding member of GRVR Attorneys.

    Archives

    September 2016
    December 2015
    April 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    April 2014
    November 2013
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    September 2011
    July 2011
    May 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010

    Categories

    All
    And Forfeitures
    Bankruptcy
    Border Searches
    Bureau Of Industry And Security
    Classification
    Commodity Jurisdiction
    Compliance
    Country Of Origin
    Court Of International Trade
    C TPAT
    C-TPAT
    Customs Broker Exam
    Customs Brokers
    Export
    Export License
    Export Penalties
    Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    HTSUS
    Immigration
    Importer Self-Assessment
    Incoterms
    Intellectual Property Rights
    International Sales Contracts
    ITRAC
    Litigation
    NAFTA
    OFAC
    Penalties
    Post-Entry Amendments
    Prior Disclosure
    Redelivery
    Sanctions
    Torts Claims Act

    RSS Feed

Picture
  • Home
  • Who we are
    • Client Dedication
    • Our Legal Team
    • Join Our Team
  • Our Practice
    • Customs and Import
    • 301refunds
    • Export
    • Litigation
    • Section 232 and 301 Tariffs
    • Outsource Your Classification
    • CBP Audits
    • Fines, Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures
    • Customs Brokers
    • C-TPAT >
      • Mexico C-TPAT >
        • C-TPAT In English
        • Quienes Somos/About Us
    • Foreign-Trade Zones
    • Antidumping and Countervailing Duties
    • Intellectual Property RIghts
    • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • Manifest Confidentiality
    • Contracts and Incoterms
    • False Claims Act and Whistleblower
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Newsletter >
      • brokermondernization
    • free online import mini-audit
    • free online export mini-audit
  • Calendar and Events
  • Best Customs Broker Exam Course
  • Contact