Legal Remedies and Governing Laws in International Sales of Goods

The Hardware Y units arrived at Dover, England, UK, on time. However, Intermediate discovered at its manufacturing plant outside London that 50% of the Hardware Y units malfunctioned due to a design defect by American Hardware. This made 50% of the Hardware Y units useless to Intermediate which could not incorporate such units with its own software for use by Romanic. Intermediate also discovered that the remaining 50% of the Hardware Y units had been damaged by sea water which rendered them inoperable and also useless to Intermediate which could not incorporate such units with its own software for use by Romanic. Fortunately, time was not of the essence for the contract Intermediate had with Romanic for the Hardware  Y units which American Hardware, Intermediate, and Romanic all deems to be unique goods.

Jones comes to you for legal advice with respect to remedies concerning: (1) nonfunctioning Hardware X due to manufacturing defects; (2) nonfunctioning Hardware X due to being water logged; (3)  nonfunctioning Hardware Y due to manufacturing defects; and (4) nonfunctioning Hardware Y due to being water logged.

Question 1: (25 marks) (approximately 750 words, more or less)

What law is the governing law of the international sale of goods contract between Intermediate and French Hardware? Why? Assuming that Intermediate can obtain personal service of process over French Hardware in the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, what is the best remedy for Intermediate to pursue against French Hardware since Romanic terminated its contract with Intermediate for its breach of contract with Romanic? Students must cite to appropriate statutory and/or treaty law, case law, and legal journal articles in support of their answer. Ignore the Brussels 1 and Rome Regulations if they might apply.

Question 2:

Assuming that French Hardware entrusted the shipment of Hardware X to a road carrier and that the goods were carried by truck from Paris to Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and from Rotterdam the truck was driven onto a train which carried the goods by rail to Calais, France, and from Calais the goods were driven onto the ship SS Super Speedy Delivery  and carried by sea to Dover, England, the loading doors were not securely closed on the ship which caused sea water to enter the deck of the ship on which the truck was secured for the voyage (fortunately the doors were secured before the ship could sink, but not before sea water had seeped into the many trucks stowed on the deck that the truck containing the Hardware X units was stowed), and from Dover, England, the truck was driven off the ship to Intermediate’s manufacturing plant outside London, what law is the governing law of each stage of the multimodal transportation of the goods? Why? If any carrier is liable to Intermediate, which carrier is liable under what governing law and to what amount? Students must cite to appropriate statutory and/or treaty law, case law, and legal journal articles in support of their answer.

Question 3: (25 marks) (approximately 750 words more or less)

Is the CISG the correct governing law of the international sale of goods contract between Intermediate and American Hardware? Why? Assuming that Intermediate can obtain personal service of process over American Hardware in either the legal jurisdiction of Delaware or the legal jurisdiction of New York and elects to serve process over American Hardware in the legal jurisdiction of New York, what is the best remedy for Intermediate to pursue against American Hardware since Romanic has not yet terminated its contract with Intermediate for breach of contract? Why? Students must cite to appropriate statutory and/or treaty law, case law, and legal journal articles in support of their answer.

Question 4: (25 marks) (approximately 750 words more or less)

Assuming that time was of the essence in the carriage of Hardware Y units by sea from New York to Dover, what law is the governing law of the carriage of goods by sea contract between Intermediate and the owner of the SS Speedy Delivery? What, if any, liability does the owner of the SS Speedy Delivery have towards Intermediate