Scribd
Upload
131 views1 page

2013 International Sales Contract

The ball-bearing manufacturer Powerball, Inc. is based in the US state of Delta and sent a catalogue to its international and domestic customers, including the French firm Cyclovite. Cyclovite placed an order according to the terms in the catalogue. Powerball sent a confirmation letter changing the delivery terms, but Cyclovite claims it never received the letter. When the goods were delivered, five crates were damaged. Cyclovite demands replacement goods and damages, but Powerball refuses. The case will likely be pursued in Delta courts applying Delta law, as the catalogue specified this jurisdiction and Powerball's terms favor it prevailing.

Uploaded by

Rémi AS Bouron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
131 views1 page

2013 International Sales Contract

The ball-bearing manufacturer Powerball, Inc. is based in the US state of Delta and sent a catalogue to its international and domestic customers, including the French firm Cyclovite. Cyclovite placed an order according to the terms in the catalogue. Powerball sent a confirmation letter changing the delivery terms, but Cyclovite claims it never received the letter. When the goods were delivered, five crates were damaged. Cyclovite demands replacement goods and damages, but Powerball refuses. The case will likely be pursued in Delta courts applying Delta law, as the catalogue specified this jurisdiction and Powerball's terms favor it prevailing.

Uploaded by

Rémi AS Bouron
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

International Business Law

2013

INTERNATIONAL SALE
Practical Case
The ball-bearing manufacturer Powerball, Inc. is incorporated in the United States
state of Delta. The ball-bearings are offered for sale to both its international and
domestic customers in an English-language catalogue (obviously showing the prices
of its products in $US) that is mailed each December to all its clients. After having
received the catalogue, the French firm Cyclovite placed an order (in English) by
mail that contained no additional conditions in January 2013 for ball-bearings in the
amount of $US100.000. One of the clauses in the General Sales Conditions that
appear on the back of the catalogue stipulates as follows: All our prices include
delivery of the goods DDP (Incoterms 2010). Another clause stipulates that All
disputes arising from contracts between Powerball and its international clients shall
be subject to the jurisdiction of Delta courts applying Delta Law.
After having received the order of Cyclovite, Powerball confirms in the form of a
letter sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, that the goods will be delivered
by April 1, 2013, and claims that it can demonstrate by the signed return receipt that
the confirmation in fact reached Cyclovite on February 10, 2013. However,
Cyclovite contends that none of its employees ever saw this letter. Powerball
alleges that the confirmation letter contained the following sentence: From February
1, 2013 our prices include delivery of the goods DES (Incoterms 2010).
On April 1, 2013, as promised, the goods are delivered but during unloading the
contents of five out of the 20 crates are damaged.
Cyclovite demands that Powerball deliver another five crates of ball-bearings to
replace the five damaged ones and demands in addition $US10.000 in damages as a
penalty for the delayed delivery of these crates to its clients. Powerball refuses to
comply.
Before which courts could Cyclovite likely pursue its claims and which firm seems to
have the greatest likelihood of prevailing? Explain.

Associate Professor Dr. Gerlinde Berger-Walliser


ICN Business School, Nancy
E-mail: [email protected]

You might also like