Anda di halaman 1dari 2


1. Elizabeth Bay Developments; Common Law Division of Supreme Court of New South
Wales : Giles J
Contract-multi tire-settlement(7 days), mediation (28 days), Arbitration ACDR
rules- Rules have provision of mediation with certain guidelines- intention of parties
is not to follow them as seen from the facts- opt for simple mediation- not laying
down the proper procedure- uncertain- not binding.

2. Schoffman v. Central States Diversified; United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
The dispute begins with negotiation- regarding Pac division of center state-
Schoffman was an employee of Pac- the earlier manager weslys negotiation after his
removal include some right of the Schoffman in letter of negotiation. He challenged
the company on ground of that letter- court held it is vage and unenforceable.

3. Wah v Grant Thornton Int’l Ltd; in the high court of justice chancery division; england
and wails HC.

4. Matter of Jack kent cooke; Appellate division of SC of New York.

Contract b/w tenant and landlord- landlord to make annual record- tennnant have
acces to it- if any dispute can solve by arbitrator-no objection in first place-appoint
accountant, told him there was fraud. Challenge in court for arbitration- the clause
is not obligatory-only precondition. Pre condition fulfilled as tenant did not raise
any objection and can’t object according to clause.

5. Cumberland & York Distrib. v Coors Brewing Co; united states district court district of

6. Oberlandesgericht (Provincial Court of Appeal) Braunschweig; Germany of 28 October

1999 also called FROZEN MEAT CASE.
sThe present decision dealt with questions of mitigation under article 77 as well as the
place of performance for damages awarded under article 61 CISG.
A German seller (the plaintiff) sold to a Belgian buyer (the defendant) 12600 kg of deer
meat [venison]. The contract stipulated that the meat be shipped to Antwerp. Shipment
was to be made upon payment of the invoice. Shortly after formation of the contract the
seller informed the buyer that part of the meat would arrive via plane at Brussels. The
seller asked the buyer to accept the goods at Brussels and Antwerp and issued invoices
for the two shipments. The buyer refused to take the goods at Brussels. The seller then
offered to deliver all of the goods to Antwerp within the time limit of the contract and
reiterated its demand for immediate payment. The buyer did not pay, arguing that the
seller had refused to perform under the contract with regard to the place of performance.
The seller then sued for damages for non-performance. The first instance court
(Landgericht Braunschweig 3 February 1999, 9 O 332/97) ruled in favour of the [seller].
On appeal, the Higher Regional Court upheld the decision. It ruled that if the buyer is
obliged under the contract to pay the price in advance, then the seller is under no
obligation to offer to deliver the goods before having received the price. The Court also
found that article 77 in principle does not impose an obligation on the party seeking to
rely on the breach of contract to mitigate losses arising from a failed contract of sale by
means of a substitute purchase as long as the contract still exists. Finally, the Court found
that the place of performance for damages awarded under article 61 is the same as the
place of performance concerning the primary obligation of the buyer under article 57.