International Business Law

International Business Law

1. The Jolly Canning Co. in State A agreed to sell 10,000 cases of canned green beans to the Merry Produce Co. in State B. The terms were FOB Bigport in State A. The parties agreed that the governing rules were Incoterms 1990. Jolly, by mistake, delivered 10,000 cases of canned corn to the carrier in Bigport. Moreover, the bill of lading clearly stated that goods were canned corn. While the goods were in transit, they were damaged by seawater as a result of the carrier's negligence. Jolly sues the carrier, but the carrier challenges Jolly's standing (right) to sue. The carrier claims that the risk of loss had passed to Merry Produce (the consignee on the bill of lading) as soon as the goods had passed the ship's rail.

Is the carrier correct?

Should Jolly's suit be dismissed? Why or why not?

2. Ess Company in Country C agreed to sell 700 television sets to Bee Company, a wholesaler, in Country D for US $144,417.00. Ess and Bee expressly agreed that Bee would not pay for the television sets until Bee both received and sold the merchandise in Country D. They also agreed that the merchandise would be shipped CPT Portstown in Country D and that Incoterms 1990 would govern. Ess arranged to ship the goods with Zee Carriers, whose place of business is located in Beachtown in Country C. Ess loaded the goods from its warehouse into a trailer and delivered the trailer to Zee's freight depot in Beachtown. Several days later, the trailer was discovered to be missing and later still it was found abandoned and empty. Bee, the buyer, then sued Zee. The carrier challenged Bee's standing (right) to sue because it said that the original contract said that Bee had no liability to pay for the merchandise until after it was received and sold by Bee. Therefore, Zee argued, it was the seller, Ess, who should have brought the suit, not Bee.

Is Zee correct?

Similar Essays