06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

per<strong>for</strong>m a substantial part of his obligations as a result of . . . his conduct in preparing<br />

to per<strong>for</strong>m or in per<strong>for</strong>ming the contract.” In this case, there is no dispute that RTI<br />

refused to per<strong>for</strong>m on the contract. RTI sent a letter to CSN on October 24, 2011,<br />

stating that it would procure the requested copper from an alternate supplier. CSN<br />

responded stating, “please be in<strong>for</strong>med the cancellation is NOT ACCEPTED by CSN.”<br />

RTI then sent a follow-up letter to CSN on October 28, 2011, stating that it would not<br />

follow through with its obligations relating to advance payment or other <strong>for</strong>ms of<br />

guarantee. On November 4, 2011, RTI sent yet another letter confirming it was<br />

canceling the purchase orders.<br />

It is hard to imagine a clearer repudiation. RTI sent repeated notices to CSN<br />

over an 11 day period setting <strong>for</strong>th its reasons <strong>for</strong> not per<strong>for</strong>ming the contract. In<br />

short, RTI believed that the terms of the contract were different than they actually<br />

were. Thus, RTI breached its contractual obligations to CSN.<br />

______________________<br />

Review Question 4. The CISG, says the court, adopts the “mirror image” rule,<br />

which in the “battle of the <strong>for</strong>ms” situation is the equivalent of the “last shot” rule—<br />

whoever sends the last <strong>for</strong>m wins. Under the UCC’s rules of acceptance in<br />

section 2-207, would the case have come out differently? If so, you should be prepared<br />

to explain how. If CSN’s payment clause had not become part of the contract, wouldn’t<br />

that mean that the UCC is a “first shot” rule—that whoever sends the first <strong>for</strong>m wins?<br />

Which rule makes more sense and why?<br />

______________________<br />

Problems<br />

Problem 12.1<br />

Bulldog Motors PLC is a British corporation that manufactures high-end<br />

motorcycles. Its principal place of business is Leeds, United Kingdom. It has a wholly<br />

owned subsidiary, Bulldog North America, Inc. (“BNA”), a Delaware corporation with<br />

its principal place of business in Huntsville, Alabama, where it operates an assembly<br />

plant <strong>for</strong> motorcycles to be sold in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Mei Guo<br />

Products Ltd. (MGP) is a Swiss corporation with its principal place of business in<br />

Singapore. It operates a wholly owned subsidiary, MGP-Thailand Corp. (MGPT),<br />

which is a Swiss corporation with its principal place of business and its<br />

manufacturing facilities <strong>for</strong> automotive parts in Bangkok, Thailand.<br />

On June 1, the purchasing manager <strong>for</strong> BNA, who is in Toronto, Canada, <strong>for</strong> a<br />

regional corporate meeting, does a video conference call with the sales manager of<br />

MGPT, who is in Bangkok. The purchasing manager and the sales manager agree<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

232 CHAPTER IV: ALTERNATIVE REGIMES

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!