admin管理员组文章数量:1567563
2023年12月29日发(作者:)
FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
West Reporter Image (PDF)
635 F.3d 1106
Briefs and Other Related Documents
Judges and Attorneys
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
DINGXI LONGHAI DAIRY, LTD.,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
BECWOOD TECHNOLOGY GROUP L.L.C.,
Defendant–Appellee
No. 10–2612.
Submitted: Feb. 14, 2011.
Filed: Feb. 17, 2011.
Background: Chinese manufacturer of
organic inulin, a dietary fiber used in
processed foods, brought action against
Minnesota distributor alleging breach of
contract for distributor's rejection of and
failure to pay for two purportedly
non-conforming shipments. Distributor
counterclaimed for breach of contract,
仅供教育使用
西方记者形象
635 F.3d 1106
摘要、其他相关文件法官和辩护师
美国上诉法院
第八巡回法庭
定西陇海乳制品股份有限公司
原告上诉人
诉
BECWOOD技术集团
被告上诉人
NO.10-2612
递交:2011年2月14日
存档:2011年2月17日
背景:中国有机菊粉(一种用于食品加工的食用
纤维)制造商,对明尼苏达经销商违反合同条例,
为两个无法支付的不良装运商提供货物的行为提
出抗议。经销商为他违反合同的行为即侵权干涉
合同和/或未来预期的经济关系、违反表达和默认
担保的起诉提出反诉。美国明尼苏达地方法院的
最高地方法官David ,2008 WL 2690287驳
tortious interference with contractual
回了制造商的部分要求。制造商不满判定的结果
and/or prospective economic relations and
重新上诉。
breach of express and implied warranty.
The United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, David S. Doty, Senior
District Judge, 2008 WL 2690287,
dismissed manufacturer's claims in part.
Manufacturer appealed.
Holding: The Court of Appeals held that
manufacturer stated breach of contract
claim against distributor.
Reversed and remanded.
West Headnotes
[1] KeyCite Citing References for this
Headnote
343 Sales
343VII Remedies of Seller
343VII(E) Actions for Price or
Value
343k352 Pleading
决断:上诉法院认为制造商对经销商违法合同的索赔
撤销判决,发回重审。
西部批注
【1】批注中关键参考文件的关键引证
343销售
343Ⅶ卖方的救济方法
343Ⅶ(E)价格或价格方面的行动
343k352诉状
343k353 Declaration,
Complaint, or Petition
343k353(6) k.
Performance of contract by seller. Most
Cited Cases
343 Sales KeyCite Citing References
for this Headnote
343VII Remedies of Seller
343VII(E) Actions for Price or
Value
343k352 Pleading
343k353 Declaration,
Complaint, or Petition
343k353(8) k.
Nonpayment of price and amount due and
unpaid. Most Cited Cases
Allegations by Chinese manufacturer of
organic inulin, a dietary fiber used in
processed foods, that manufacturer
performed contractual duty to deliver and
distributor rejected and failed to pay for
shipments, stated breach of contract claim
against distributor, although fact that
manufacturer recalled shipments before
they reached buyer could preclude
manufacturer's recovery of full contract
price.
343k353报关、投诉和请求
343k353(6)k.卖方合同的绩效。案例中被引用
最多的案例。
343销售 批注中关键参考文献的关键引证
343
VII卖方的救济措施
343VII(E)价格和价值方面的行动
343k352诉状
343k353报关、投诉和请求
343k353(8)k.拒绝支付到期金额和未付款等高价
值物品。案件中被引用次数最多
中国有机菊粉(一种用于食品加工的食物纤维)
制造商申诉,制造商履行合了同中约定的运送的
责任,但是经销商拒绝收货而且没有为货物支付
货款,制造商对经销商违反合同条例的行为进行
索赔。尽管事实上制造商在未到达之前回收货物
买方能够阻止制造商恢复合同的全部价格。
[2] KeyCite Citing References for this
Headnote
170A Federal Civil Procedure
170AXI Dismissal
170AXI(B) Involuntary Dismissal
170AXI(B)3 Pleading, Defects
In, in General
170Ak1773 k. Clear or certain
nature of insufficiency. Most Cited Cases
Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a court may dismiss a
complaint only if it is clear that no relief
could be granted under any set of facts
that could be proved consistent with the
allegations.
12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.
*1107 Anthony J. Pruzinsky, New York, NY,
Justin M. Heilig, New York, NY, and Delin
Qu, Saint Paul, MN, on the brief, for
appellant.
There is no counsel of record nor was any
brief filed by appellee.
Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD,
【2】批注中的关键参考文件的关键引证
170A联邦民事诉讼法
170AXI上诉驳回
170AXI(B)驳回
170A XI(B)3一般而言,诉状、缺陷等
170Ak1773k.清除或某些性质的不足。案例中引用次数最多
根据联邦民事诉讼规则,只有在明确由于无法证
明起诉与事实相一致而导致不能给予任何救济的
情况下,法院才能驳回诉讼。同盟国原则、科特
迪瓦共和国拟定条款,12(b)(6),28U.S.C.A
1107 诉书上的申诉人:Anthony sky,纽
约,Justin g,纽约,和Delin Qu,圣保
罗 明尼苏达州
被告没有请名义上的法律顾问,也没有任何诉书
申请
在巡回法官:LOKEN,MELLOY和SHEPHERD
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Dingxi Longhai Dairy (―Dingxi‖) agreed
to ship 612 metric tons of Inulin, a dietary
fiber extract, to Becwood Technology
Group (―Becwood‖), a Minnesota
distributor. The contract called for four
shipments from the port of
Tianjin–Xingang, China, to Londonderry,
New Hampshire. Becwood received the
first two shipments, paid for one, and
refused to pay for the second because of
mold on the exterior of the packaging.
Dingxi recalled the third and fourth
shipments before they reached their
destination and sued Becwood for breach
of contract and fraudulent
misrepresentation. The district court
granted Becwood's Rule 12(b)(6) motion
and dismissed Dingxi's claims relating to
shipments three and four. Nearly two years
later, the district court entered a final order
granting Dingxi summary judgment on its
breach-of-contract claim for shipment two.
Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood
依法官判词。
定西陇海乳制品(后简称“定西”)同意运送612
公吨的菊粉(一种提取出的食用纤维)到明尼苏
达州的经销商Becwood技术集团(后简称
“Becwood”),合同要求货物分四批从中国天津
新港运送到伦敦德里郡新罕布什尔州。Becwood
收到了第一、二批货后,为支付第一批货物的货
款,而拒绝为另一批外部生了霉菌的货付款。定
西将第三、四批货物在到达目的地之前撤回了并
且起诉Becwood违反合同和发布欺骗性的言论。
地方法院给允许了Becwood Rule12(b)(6)的行
动,驳回了定西关于第三、四批货物的索赔诉讼。
大约两年之后,地方法院进行了终审裁定,即决
审判定西第二批货物违约不能要求索赔。
定西陇海乳制品有限股份公司诉Becwood技术集团
Tech. Grp., L.L.C., 718 .2d 1019,
1024 (.2010). Dingxi now appeals
the earlier order dismissing its
breach-of-contract claims for shipments
three and four.
FN1 We reverse.
FN1. Dingxi did not appeal dismissal of its
misrepresentation claims. Accordingly,
that portion of the partial dismissal order is
affirmed.
It is undisputed that the contract was
governed by the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the
International Sale of Goods (―CISG‖), the
―international analogue‖ to Article 2 of the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Chicago
Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food
Trading Co., 408 F.3d 894, 898 (7th
Cir.2005). In applying the Convention, we
look to the language of its provisions and
the ―general principles on which it is
based.‖ CISG Art. 7(2). ―Caselaw
interpreting analogous provisions of Article
2 ... may also inform a court where the
language of the relevant CISG provisions
tracks that of the UCC.‖ *1108 Delchi
Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d
Grp,L.L.C.,.2d
1019,1024(.2010)
现在定西上诉撤销早期第三、四批货物的违约索
赔的起诉。退了一步。
FN1.定西没有撤回有关Becwood误传的索赔。因
此,一部分上诉被部分驳回是肯定的。
根据国际货物销售合同(CISG),“国际模拟”
统一商法典(UCC)第二章这份合同属于联合国大
会的管辖范围。芝加哥Prime罐头有限公司诉
Northam食品贸易公司。480 F.3d 894,898(7th
Cir.2005).在实施公约时,我们所期望的各项规
定和语言,都是基于一般原则之上。CISG条款.7
(2)提到:“第二章案例法在解释类似的规定时,
由UCC CISG的规定程序,可能也通知了相关语言
的法院。”*1108 Delchi 载波SPA公司诉Rotorex
公司。71 F.3d 1024,1028(2d Cir.1995)
1024, 1028 (2d Cir.1995). With regard to
pleading requirements, ―the Convention's
structure confirms what common sense
(and the common law) dictate as the
universal elements of [a
breach-of-contract] action: formation,
performance, breach and damages.‖
Magellan Int'l Corp. v. Salzgitter Handel
GmbH, 76 .2d 919, 924
(.1999).
For its breach-of-contract claim,
Dingxi's complaint alleged that it timely
delivered all four shipments ―F.O.B. to
Tianjin–Xingang Port, China,‖ as specified
in the signed purchase order; that
Becwood failed to pay for the last three
shipments; and that Dingxi was therefore
entitled to recover $1,415,086 ―together
with interest, disbursement, costs,
expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees.‖
Under the UCC, this would plainly be a §
2–709 ―Action for the Price‖ of the goods
by the seller. Under the CISG, it was a
claim by the seller for breach of contract
subject to the remedy provisions in Articles
61–65 and 74–77. See CISG Art. 61(1).
关于诉状的请求,“大会组织确定以常识(和
例法)的指示作为普遍的部分【违约】行为,如:
信息、性能、违约行为和损害赔偿金的审判依据。”
Magellan国际公司诉Salzgitter Handel股份有限公
司,76 .2d 919,924 (N.D. ⅠII.1999).
针对违约的索赔,定西的诉状宣称,按照签署
采购单的说明,在中国天津新港口岸采用FOB条
款,及时的运送了全部四批货物,但是Becwood
未能为余下的三批货物付款。因此定西有权索回
连同利息、支出、成本、费用以及辩护律师费在
内的1,415,086元。根据UCC,这显然是卖方的
“§2-709”商品的价格行动。根据CISG,这是由
于卖方违反了合同标的在第61-65和74-77章补
救措施的规定要求的索赔。
Becwood moved to dismiss the claim
regarding shipments three and four on the
由CISG第61章第一条:Bcewood 动议撤销关于
ground that a seller who recalls goods
before they reach the buyer may not
―recover as damages, even if you assume
that there's a breach from the buyer, the
very contract price of those goods that the
seller retained.‖ The district court agreed.
It dismissed the claim on the ground that
damages following contract avoidance are
governed by CISG Art. 76, and therefore
―Dingxi has failed to assert cognizable
damages on shipments 3 and 4.‖
FN2
FN2. Article 73(2) of the CISG provides:
If one party's failure to perform any of his
obligations in respect of any instalment
gives the other party good grounds to
conclude that a fundamental breach of
contract will occur with respect to future
installments, he may declare the contract
avoided for the future, provided that he
does so within a reasonable time.
Thus, ―avoidance‖ of a contract under
Article 73(2) is analogous to ―cancellation‖
第三、四批货物的索赔,因为即使卖方在货物到
达目的地之前就把货召回了,即便是假设买方违
约,卖方保留了货物的合同价格
FN2CISG第73(2)章提供:
如果一方当事人不履行关于分期付款的义务,对
方当事人就会认为会违反对于今后各批货物的合
同,他会宣告对未来的合同周年革命他在一段合
理时间内如此做。
因此,在第73(2)章中,一个合同的“回避”类似于UCC中的“撤销”。参考§§ 2-106(4);
under the UCC. See §§ 2–106(4);
2–612(3). Article 76(1) provides as to
remedies:
If the contract is avoided and there is a
current price for the goods, the party
claiming damages may, if he has not made
2 - 612(3)。第76(1)条中关于合同补济中的提
供:
如果这个合同被宣告,并且货物有现价,如果没
有根据第75条规定作出购买或转售,这一方就会
a purchase or resale under article 75,
recover the difference between the price
fixed by the contract and the current price
at the time of avoidance as well as any
further damages recoverable under article
74.
Article 74 provides that damages for
breach of contract ―consist of a sum equal
to the loss, including loss of profit.‖
Compare the seller's remedies provided in
UCC §§ 2–703, 2–706, 2–708(1), and
2–708(2), which are ―essentially
cumulative in nature.‖ R.E. Davis Chem.
Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc., 826 F.2d 678,
681–685 (7th Cir.1987).
We can agree that it is highly
unlikely—though not inconceivable—that
an aggrieved seller in this situation would
recover the full contract price for
shipments three and four. But Becwood's
生命损害赔偿可能修复合同订的价格和免除的现
价之间的差异,也会修复第74章红的以后可能产生 损害。
第74条规定违反的损失“由一些损失组成,包括
利益损失”
比较UCC§§2703提供的卖方补救方法和在本质
上累积自然规律。”的东西
我们赞成虽然能想象,受侵害的卖家在这种情况
下也不可能恢复出货3个和4个下的合同订的价
格。但是Becwood解除合同声明的动机确实是不
妥当的:
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the
breach-of-contract claim was nonetheless
ill-conceived:
The sufficiency of a pleading is tested by
请求的充分性被关于评判的补救和需求的声明测
the Rule 8(a)(2) statement of the claim for
relief and the demand for judgment is not
considered part of the claim for that
purpose, as numerous cases have held.
Thus, the selection of an improper remedy
in the Rule 8(a)(3) demand for relief will
not be fatal to a party's pleading if the
statement of the claim indicates the
pleader may be entitled to relief of some
other type.
5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 3d § 1255 at 508–09 (3d
ed.2004); see Bontkowski v. Smith, 305
F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir.2002); Laird v.
Integrated Resources, Inc., 897 F.2d 826,
841–42 (5th Cir.1990); Schoonover v.
Schoonover, 172 F.2d 526, 530 (10th
Cir.1949). The amount of damages to be
recovered is *1109 based upon the proof,
not the pleadings. See .P. 54(c).
[1] [2] Under the Federal Rules
试不被认为是为发的一部分判断,向众多案例一
样已被保留。因此,在第八条中对不当救济规则
选择时如果索赔的申诉显示辩护律师可能有权救
济其他的类型,那么对救济的需求将不会给一方
的辩护带来致命的危害。
5Wright&Miller,联邦实务和程序:根据民法在
508-09(3d ed.2004)中3d § 1255;览 Bontkowski
诉Smith,305 F.3d 757,762(7th Cir.2002);Laird
诉Integrated资源有限公司,897 F.2d
826,841-42(5th Cir.1990); Schoonover诉
Schoonover,172 F.2d 526,530(10th Cir.1994).
重新获得的赔偿金的数量是以*1109的校对为依
据,而不是根据原告的诉状。览.P.
54(c)【1】【2】。
of Civil Procedure, ―a court may dismiss a
complaint only if it is clear that no relief
could be granted under any set of facts
that could be proved consistent with the
allegations.‖ Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,
根据民事诉讼法中的联邦法规,“一个法院只有
在明确能够证明起诉是与事实相一致的情况下没
有允许的救济时,才可以驳回诉讼。”
534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 . 992, 152
.2d 1 (2002) (emphasis added;
quotation omitted). Here, Dingxi's
complaint stated a breach-of-contract
claim—performance of its contractual duty
to deliver and the buyer's refusal to pay. A
fact outside the pleading became part of
the Rule 12 record, apparently without
objection—that Dingxi recalled shipments
three and four before they reached the
buyer. That fact will likely preclude
recovery of the full contract price. But if
Dingxi proves that Becwood breached the
contract as to shipments three and four, it
is almost certain to be entitled to some
monetary relief. Accordingly, the district
court erred in granting Becwood's Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
The order dismissing Dingxi's
breach-of-contract claims relating to
shipments three and four is reversed. The
case is remanded for further proceedings
Swierkiewicz诉Sorema N.A.534 U.S.506,
514,122S. Ct.992, 152 LED.2D 1(2002)(重点强
调;报价省略)。在这个案件中,定西的诉状阐明
了一个违约的索赔:我方履行了合约中运送货物
的义务,买方却决绝为其付款。这个是诉状中没
提到的被记录在案的事实,定西在第三、四批货
物到达买方前就将其撤回是不争的事实。这一事
实可能会使赔偿不能达到最大的合约价格。但是
定西如果能证明Becwood违反合约中关于第三、
四批货物的约定,定西还是有权获得某些货币方
面的救济。因此,地方法院在允许Becwood不予
理会的要求是错误的。Ruke 12(b)(6)
下达因为三、四批货物的责任颠倒而驳回定西违约索赔的命令。这个案子最终发回重申,以防与观点不一致而进行跟深一层诉讼,其中可能包括追加定西要求这个法院委托地方法院修改允许对
第二批货物即决审判的命令。基于案件现已发回
not inconsistent with this opinion, which
may include the matter raised in Dingxi's
motion to this court for leave to ask the
district court to modify its order granting
summary judgment on shipment two. As
the case is now remanded, that motion is
denied as moot. See In re Modern Textile,
Inc., 900 F.2d 1184, 1193 (8th Cir.1990).
C.A.8 (Minn.),2011.
Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood
Technology Group L.L.C.
635 F.3d 1106
Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back
to top)
• 2010 WL 3708484 (Appellate Brief) Brief
for Plaintiff-Appellant (Sep. 8, 2010)
Original Image of this Document (PDF)
• 10-2612 (Docket) (Jul. 20, 2010)
Judges and Attorneys (Back to top)
Judges | Attorneys
Judges
重申,此提议经大会讨论最终被拒绝。览 关于现
th
代纺织品有限公司,900 F.2d 84,1193(8Cir.
1990).
C.A.8 (Minn.),2011.
定西陇海乳制品股份有限公司 诉 Becwood科技
集团 L.L.C 635 F.3d 1106
摘要和其他相关文件(回到顶部)
2010 WL 3708484 (受理上诉的摘要)原告上诉人
的诉书(2010年9月8日)
文件的原始图像(PDF)
10-2612(摘要)(2010年7月20日)
法官和辩护律师(回到顶部)
法官 | 辩护律师
法官
Doty, Hon. David S.
United States District Court, Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion
Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial
Expert Challenge Report | Profiler
Loken, Hon. James B.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion
Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial
Expert Challenge Report | Profiler
Melloy, Hon. Michael Joseph
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal
Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report |
Profiler
·Doty, S.
美国地方法院,明尼苏达州
明尼阿波利斯市,明尼苏达州 55415
诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告
| 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器
·Loken, B.
美国上诉法院,第八巡回法庭
,Missouri 63102
诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告
| 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器
·Melloy,l Joseph
美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭
,Missouri 63102
诉讼历史报告 | 司法撤销报告
| 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器
Shepherd, Hon. Bobby E.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion
Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial
Expert Challenge Report | Profiler
Attorneys
Attorneys for Appellant
Heilig, Justin
New York, New York 10006
Litigation History Report | Profiler
Pruzinsky, Anthony J.
New York, New York 10006
Litigation History Report | Profiler
· Shepherd, Hon. Bobby E.
美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭
,Missouri 63102
诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告
| 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器
辩护律师
上诉人的辩护律师
· Heilig, Justin
纽约,纽约10006
诉讼历史报告 | 分析器
·Pruzinsky, Anthony J.
纽约,纽约10006
诉讼历史报告 | 分析器
Qu, Delin
Arcadia, California 91007
Litigation History Report | Profiler
END OF DOCUMENT
·Qu, Delin
阿卡迪亚,加利福尼亚 91007
诉讼历史报告 | 分析器
文件完结
国商案例翻译
CASE 6
姓名:马丽娜
学号:1042317
班级:国贸3班
版权声明:本文标题:国商案例翻译 内容由热心网友自发贡献,该文观点仅代表作者本人, 转载请联系作者并注明出处:https://www.elefans.com/dianzi/1703839574a74226.html, 本站仅提供信息存储空间服务,不拥有所有权,不承担相关法律责任。如发现本站有涉嫌抄袭侵权/违法违规的内容,一经查实,本站将立刻删除。
发表评论