To begin with, cases of this magnitude have been experienced in several instances precipitating the need for states to enact legislations that would not only provide effective solution, but also ensure there is amicable reciprocity between states involved. To give a critical brief, it is justified according to French Intellectual Property Code that royalty violation and acts of counterfeit were committed against the plaintiffs. This is a common law in almost every nation of the world that protects the rule of law and justice. In deed, Fashionfinder, Inc. is even enjoying proceeds from posted photographs which it deeds nothing to create; this is an act of intellectual property violation which should be considered extensively by the US Court of Appeal.
In analyzing the outcome of the appeal, I do find sufficient grounds to conclude that the Appeal court will overrule the decision of the District Court. First of all, the French Court had exclusive jurisdiction on this case since Louis Ferrand International is a company incorporated in France and, there was counterfeit flight from France to America. Hence, the French Court had the jurisdiction to protect the rights of the French company. Some of the conditions specified under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, for not recognizing the judgment of a foreign court includes; if the judgment was found not to be conclusive; if the foreign court never had personal jurisdictions over the defendant. All these conditions were satisfied by the French court.
The District Court’s basis of First Amendment cannot be fully applicable in this situation. In deed it will be working in complete conflict to the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, facts fully satisfied by the French court. In conclusion therefore, there are sufficient facts for the US Appeal Court to enforce the ruling against Fashionfinder.
International Human Rights
It is squarely important to note that this case is based to a large extent on Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) as well as subsequent legislations such as Torture Victim Prevention Act (TVPA); all of which give basis for ruling on crimes against humanity committed in foreign countries. In giving its ruling, the Supreme Court should consider the fact that there was an intent deliberate action by the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company to engage in inhuman acts such as torture and execution against the natives of Ogoni. Such acts committed constitute what would be described as violation of human rights as enshrined in the international human rights law; such violation also contravenes the United States domestic laws. But the complexity in ruling in this case involves Personal Jurisdiction. Analyzing all the pertinent facts to this case, the Court of Appeal should therefore recognize the fact that there is a problem of forum non convenience and hence, the case should be referred to Britain Courts where Shell originates from.
Generally, to avoid individual country transaction laws being applied in this trade, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) stands as the only substantive law to effect this transaction. This fundamentally rests on the premise that the parties in this transaction hails from contracting countries that subscribe to CISG. Under CISG, the transaction is entrenched on the Mailbox rule since the transaction involves the dispatch of mails in form of order of acknowledgement.
The contract under the mailbox rule of CISG is enforced by Article 18(2) which adopts what is famously known as the Receipt rule. Through receipt rule, the contract is enforced only at that instance the indicated assent reaches the offeror. This clause is read holy in conjunction with article 16(1) which provides a window for revocation in moments the revocation letter reaches the offeree before he/she actually makes a dispatch of the letter of acceptance. Hence, in the transaction between Universal and Euro, the contract is reinforced buy the sending of telegram from Euro and a subsequent dispatch of letter of acknowledgement by Universal. These two transactions seal the contract governing the whole transaction.
According to CISG Damage provisions, it is likely that Universal has a wide range of liability in this contract. In fact, it is provided under CISG provisions that the damages accruing from a contract breach may not actually surpass the damage or the loss to which the party involved in the breach foresaw initially or ought to have forecasted. This is a very strong statement which means that Universal as the breaching party, is likely to be liable for a wide range of consequences than what it ought to have predicted like corroding refinery piping in Germany (Charles L. Knapp et al.).
International Movement of Goods:
International movement of goods involving Sam and his two clients is purely governed under the Incoterms. As specified in the FOB, Sam should not arrange for transportation of books to Bill, but only to the port of transit. If Sam does arrange for transportation as a favor to Bill, then he should redraft the contract and embed it as an annex to the original contract. Again, it is not Sam’s responsibility to arrange for insurance when goods are on transit to Bill, Sam’s responsibility ends at the port; that arrangement is Bill’s. In part D under FOB, Bill should pay for his cargo insurance since anything can happen while goods are on transit. In section E, Sam cannot obtain one bill of lading for the customers since they are operating on different terms.
In part F, only Howard has the exclusive rights to inspect the goods before paying for them, this is because, Sam the seller is responsible for all expenses up to the point of collection by Howard giving him the right to inspect first before paying. Again, Sam should opt to get a negotiable bill of lading against Howard as this would help in counter-checking the quality of his cargo. Lastly under the two terms of CIF and FOB, the carrier clerk was within the law to only stamp the bills once they are loaded. Any damage that occurs to the goods while loading is always met by the seller; hence Sam should not be worried.
According to Lading Bills, career liability is limited to 39 Packs carrying 27900 Units of Boy pants.
Each pack is charged at $500, hence the total career liability would be:
39 packs × $500= $19500.
Trade and Finance
In part one, the two documents presented to the bank contain different descriptions and going ahead to effect the transaction could be detrimental, the bank should inform the seller to liaise with the buyer or the shipping company to make correction on the truckers bill. In part two, the problem is either with the seller shipping the commodity or with the carrier clerk, this the seller should correct before the bank effect the transaction. In section three, the units are different and the bank should not make any assumption, it should confirm with the bearer of the invoice accordingly. Lastly, date is one of the crucial elements in modern day banking. Thorough check should be done on the insurance to verify date authenticity.
From the facts thereof, the contract has been violated extensively and instead of John Little getting genuine and quality products as required, Hood has just shipped default ones. The only option that Little should exploit at this point is the warranty given since all the expenses were transferred to him once the goods were loaded on the ship. Being that he is issued with a warranty, he therefore has the right under this warranty to return the goods and be sufficed with new ones. Additionally, suppose was known to be very shaky and likely to file bankruptcy, it would make no difference on claims demanded by Little.