国际商法 La San Giuseppe法案.doc

SummaryFacts:Plaintiff: La San Giuseppe (LSG), an Italy company, manufactures picture frame mouldings in Venice.Defendant: Forti Moulding Ltd, a Canadian company, distributes mouldings and picture frames in Toronto.The two parties never had a written agreement. Generally, Forti Moulding placed order by fax. Over the years, payments were not necessarily made within the 30 days, but were made more or less currently until 1995. By January, 1996, Mr. Moschini, who in charge of foreign sales for LSG, became concerned about the long delays in payment by Forti. After further unsuccessful demands for payment, the plaintiff brought an action claiming damages for breach of contract against Forti. However, the defendant counterclaimed for damages and set off, alleging that some of the mouldings received from LSG over the years were defective. Questions:1. Defendant complained about poor quality in production; Plaintiff testified there were no complaints until these legal proceedings commenced.2. Defendant complained the saw sent was not the one ordered, because it was not computerized; the difference in value between the price of the old saw and the new saw.3. There were overshipments in 1994 and 1996.Ruling & ReasoningBase on the International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act, S.C 1991, c.13 and International Sale of Goods Acts, R.S.O.1990, c.1.10. that the plaintiff used to support his evidence.1. The claim of quality was rejected. Most important is the fact that the defendant made no written complaints about the quality of the mouldings. To Article 1, the both parties have places of business in contracting states Ontario.Article 2(a) provides that the convention does not apply to goods brought for personal, family or household use, nor conclude these countries between parties.They failed to make timely complaints prior to the Statement of Defense, and this is a bar under Article 39Article 39(1) requires that the goods must be given to the seller within a reasonable time not later than 2 years after actual delivery.Article 40 requires that the seller cannot rely on this limitation period.2. Plaintiff show there is no merit to this claim for damages. The saw received was not different from what the defendant ordered in any significant way, especially given the fact that he paid for it and made no written complaints about it.3. The overshipments claim is rejected. Since written in 1994, the defendant did not make a written complaint. In fact, the defendant accepted those goods and paid for them. According to Article 52(2) of the Convention and s.29(2) of the sale of goods Act, there can be no complaint several years later. About the overshipments in 1996, the invoice indicates that several of the items allegedly overshipped were within the 10% tolerance.Conclusion:The plaintiff loses the case. LSG has the right to purchase the sum owing whic