The case presents a conflict that developed between U.S. sellers and German buyers who were engaging in pork liver international business. The German buyers wanted quality American livers and therefore identified a suitable seller in the U.S. market. The German customer expected merchantable quality liver from the seller and when delivering, the U.S seller was sure of this quality. Nonetheless, conflict developed when the buyer claimed that some of the livers were from sows when all were expected to be from male pigs as is the norm and standard for quality in the German market. Since the buyer’s view was that the expected quality was not delivered, they demanded a price allowance of $1000 dollars from the seller. The seller on the other hand believed that whatever form of pig liver is palatable in the U.S. should be similarly so in German.
The disagreement between the buyer and seller would be considered from the point of common and civil law systems. In the civil law system, court decisions are often guided by rules and principles contained in statutes and codes while in common law there is lack of a conceptual structure as laws are created through judicial decisions ( Pejovic, 2001) . The U.S. seller would be governed by common law statutes while the German seller would prefer the civil law system as these are commonplace in their respective countries. Civil law employs case decisions guided by legal norms contained in a legislation while common law makes decisions through comparison to similar cases addressed in the past ( Pejovic, 2001) . It is evident that the difference in systems applied by parties from different countries when engaging in business would make it somewhat difficult to develop contracts that are fair for both. Such contracts would need to consider the underpinnings of both civil and common law which may not be possible. It would be easier for conflict to arise due to these differences.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Statement of the Problem
There has developed a disagreement between the German buyer and U.S. seller from the differing views on what quality pork liver should be. For the U.S. seller quality is not measured by the sex of the pig while for the German seller, sex is a significant determinant in quality liver; sow livers would be considered less quality than those from male pigs.
Causes of the Problem
The disagreement between the two international traders needs to be determined and eventually resolved though international contracts law. Such law is governed by the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) to ensure that contracts developed internationally and fair to all parties involved ( Douglas & Loadsman, 2018) . If the U.S. seller and German buyer had agreed to abide by one of the laws of these two countries, then their contract would not have been considered under CISG. Nonetheless, there is no evidence of such an agreement from the case. It would be required that when these traders were formulating their contract, the international contract law applied. The outright disagreement is evident that their contract was not developed using the common law system from the U.S or the civil law system from Germany. It is why both seem to believe that they conducted trade in an appropriate manner. The U.S seller believes the products were up to the required standard while the German buyer disagrees.
Possible Solutions
In this case, the German buyer would prevail in the German courts. It is because their requirements of quality liver were not met even when they requested for a given standard from the U.S. buyer. Their argument would be that the U.S seller needed to inquire what quality liver entails for a German buyer instead of assuming that what is considered quality in the U.S would be the same in Germany. The German buyer would further argue that what they paid for is not what they got. Such a case would be decided on civil law statutes which factor in aspects to be considered when engaging in international trade including cultural preferences. These may not have been fulfilled by the U.S. buyer.
On the other hand, the U.S seller would prevail in the U.S. court. The seller’s argument would be founded on their view on what quality liver is in the U.S market. Their argument would be that since the buyer ordered quality liver from the U.S. market, what they offered was the expected quality in their market where the sex of the pig is a non-factor. The U.S. common law system would make reference to similar cases that have been resolved in the past and use them as one of the factors that would help in making a decision. Overall, each trader would have a legal edge over the other in their respective countries. This is because their arguments would be favored by the system of law they know and understand.
Solution and its Implications
Each legal system would apply in the respective countries depending on where the case is argued and decided. If the German buyer takes the case to the German courts, which would be the obvious choice for the buyer, the civil law system would apply in the decisions made. If the U.S. seller takes the case to the U.S. courts, the common law system would apply. Therefore, legal decisions made in a specific country as determined by the two buyers would be arrived at by the system adopted by the specific country where the case is heard; common law for the U.S. and civil law for Germany. Nonetheless, the best alternative for such an international legal issue would be international contract law. International contract law requires that the parties involved in trade draft a contract that is guided by a given legal system. For instance, the German buyer and U.S. seller may have decided for their contract to be founded under civil law statutes. In such a case, any conflict would be resolved using civil law statutes. Therefore, international contract law would stand as the best alternative for the two traders.
It would primarily work if the contract was based on such a foundation. When developing the contract, the two parties may have considered aspects like private international law and international civil procedural law which would have been critical in determining which system the contract should abide by ( Cavalieri & Salvatore, 2019) . Since international contract law offers the opportunity for common ground, both parties would have satisfactorily agreed which law the contract would be founded on and this would have made resolution of the current conflict easier.
Justification
International contract law is better than application of the two systems separately. It is because international contract law allows both parties to agree how conflict would be resolved in case it arises and therefore all those would be satisfied with how the case is handled. On the other hand, separate legal systems would mean that a home country system of law may favor those who belong than the outsider. In such a case, one party may feel that they were shortchanged or that the case may not have been resolved in a fair and just manner. Further, such a case abiding by separate law systems would take longer to resolve as parties involved may take some time agreeing on which system to adopt when resolving the issue.
References
Cavalieri, R., & Salvatore, V. (2019). An introduction to international contract law . G. Giappichelli.
Douglas, M., & Loadsman, N. (2018). A Study on Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contract. International Trade Law , 125 (125), 14-57. https://doi.org/10.36514/itl.2015.125.125.002
Pejovic, C. (2001). Civil Law and Common Law: Two Different Paths Leading to the Same Goal. Victoria University Of Wellington Law Review , 32 (3), 817. https://doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v32i3.5873
