国际商法

Page22PartiesinvolvedPartyone:DelchiCarrierSpA(DCS)Partytwo:RotorexCorpPage33BackgroundEventsDateRotorexCorporation,aNewYorkcorporation,agreedtosell10800compressorstoDelchi'sArielelineofportableroomairconditioners.Theairconditionerswerescheduledtogoonsaleinthespringandsummerof1988.Priortoexecutingthecontract,RotorexsentDelchiasamplecompressorsandaccompanyingwrittenperformancespecifications.ThecompressorswerescheduledtobedelieveredinthreeshipmentsbeforeMay15,1988.inJanuary1988Page44EventsDateRotorexsentthefirstshipmentbysea,Delchipaidfortheshipment,whicharrivedatitsItalianfactory,byletterofcredit.fromMarch26toApril20Rotorexsentasecondshipmentofcompressors.Delchialsoremittedpaymentforthisshipmentbyletterofcredit.whilethesecondshipmentwasaroute,Delchidiscoveredthatthefirstlotofcompressordidnotconformtothesamplemodelandaccompanyingspecifications.May9Page55EventsDateAfteraRotorexrepRsentativevisitedtheDelchifactoryinItaly,DelchiinformedRotorexthat93%ofthecompressorsarenotfitthesamplemodelandspecifications.soDaskedRtosupplynewone,Rrefused,claimingtheywereinadvertentlycommunicatedtoDelchi.onMay13afterseveralunsuccessfulattemptsDelchicancelledthecontractandfiledtheinstantactionundertheCISGforbreachofcontractandfailuretodeliverconforminggoods.May231988JudgeCholakisgrantedDelchi'smotionforpartialsummaryjudgement,holdingRotorexliableforbreachofcontract.January101991Page66ContraditionPage77ChargesPage88theexplainingofdistrictcourtAfterthreeyearsofdiscoveryandabenchtrialontheissueofdamages,JudgeMunson,towhomthecasehadtransferred,heldRotorexliabletoDelchifor$124,833,187,thisamountincludedconsequentialdamages:lostprofits;expenses;thecostofexpeditingshipment;costsofhandlingandstoringtherejectedcompressors.ThedistrictcourtalsoawardedprejudgementinterestunderCISGart.78Page99theexplainingofdistrictcourtThecourtdeniedDelchi'sclaimfordamagesbasedonotherexpenses,including:shipping,customs,andincidentals;thecostofobsoleteinsulationandtubing;thecostofobsoletetooling;laborcostforfourdays.thereasons:1)itwouldleadtoadoublerecoverybecausethosecostsareaccountedforinDelchi'srecoveryonitslostprofitsclaim.2)itdeniedanawardforthecostofmodificationofelectricalpanelsforuswithsubstitute.3)thecostwasnotattributabletothebreach.Page1010preparationfordiscussionPage1111DiscussionPage1212ConclusionPage1313Questions:一、简述本案基本事实。Injanuary2008,RotorexCorporation,aNewYorkcorporation,agreedtosell10800compressorstoDelchi'sArielelineofportableroomairconditioners.Theairconditionerswerescheduledtogoonsaleinthespringandsummerof1988.Priortoexecutingthecontract,RotorexsentDelchiasamplecompressorsandaccompanyingwrittenperformancespecifications.ThecompressorswerescheduledtobedelieveredinthreeshipmentsbeforeMay15,1988.Rotorexsentthefirstshipmentbysea,Delchipaidfortheshipment,whicharrivedatitsItalianfactory,byletterofcredit.Page1414Rotorexsentasecondshipmentofcompressors.Delchialsoremittedpaymentforthisshipmentbyletterofcredit.whilethesecondshipmentwasaroute,Delchidiscoveredthatthefirstlotofcompressordidnotconformtothesamplemodelandaccompanyingspecifications.AfteraRotorexrepresentativevisitedtheDelchifactoryinItaly,DelchiinformedRotorexthat93%ofthecompressorsarenotfitthesamplemodelandspecifications.soDaskedRtosupplynewone,Rrefused,claimingtheywereinadvertentlycommunicatedtoDelchi.Page1515DelchicancelledthecontractandfiledtheinstantactionundertheCISGforbreachofcontractandfailuretodeliverconforminggoods.JudgeCholakisgrantedDelchi'smotionforpartialsummaryjudgement,holdingRotorexliableforbreachofcontract.Page1616二、CISG下的根本违约的标准是什么？本案是否构成？AccordingtotheConvention,Article25Abreachofcontractcommittedbyoneofthepartiesisfundamentalifitresultsinsuchdetrimenttotheotherpartyassubstantiallytodeprivehimofwhatheisentitledtoexpectunderthecontract,unlessthepartyinbreachdidnotforeseeandareasonablepersonofthesamekindinthesamecircumstanceswouldnothaveforeseensucharesult.一方当事人违反合同的结果，如使另一方当事人蒙受损害，以致于实际上剥夺了他根据合同规定有权期待得到的东西，即为根本违反合同，除非违反合同一方并不预知而且一个同等资格、通情达理的人处于相同情况中也没有理由预知会发生这种结果。所以本案构成。在R公司提供给D公司的压缩机当中，大部分都与R公司之前提供的样本说明不符，违反了合同中签订的内容，并使D公司遭受了巨大损失，所以R公司的行为属于根本违反合同。Page1717三、CISG下损害赔偿74条的适用条件是什么？本案如何适用？Article74Damagesforbreachofcontractbyonepartyconsistofasumequaltotheloss,includinglossofprofit,sufferedbytheotherpartyasaconsequenceofthebreach.Suchdamagesmaynotexceedthelosswhichthepartyinbreachforesaworoughttohaveforeseenatthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontract,inthelightofthefactsandmattersofwhichhethenkneworoughttohaveknown,asapossibleconsequenceofthebreachofcontract.一方当事人违反合同应负的损害赔偿额，应与另一方当事人因他违反合同而遭受的包括利润在内的损失额相等。这种损害赔偿不得超过违反合同一方在订立合同时，依照他当时已知道或理应知道的事实和情况，对违反合同预料到或理应预料到的可能损失。在本案中，因为R公司根本违反合同的行为成立，所以理所应当R公司要赔付D公司包括利润在内的损失额。Page1818四、Hadley案的规则与CISG74条的关系是什么？请在此添加公司的署名信息