JOL vs Adell case

Group 12: Nguyen Thu Phuong

Nguyen Thi Phuong

Luong Thi Ngoc Quynh

Vu Nhat Quang

Case 7 - Chap 11 (page 209)

Content

I. Facts and issue

II. US Precedent

III. Decision

IV. Vietnam

implication

I. Facts and issue

Plaintiff: JOL - Making casino gaming chips from palletize polyester resin- Having bought resin from General Electric for eight year

Defendant: Adell- Selling resin

Facts

Facts

→ JOL sued Adell

- Adell shipped resin to JOL with forms including a damage limitation clause – limited damages to the purchase price.

- Customers complaint: new cheap were less attractive and durable.

- JOL replaced 1 million chips

Issue

But:

Adell argued JOL could not sue more than the purchase price.

Is the argument of Adell is correct?

No

Analysis

1. Acceptance When buyer make an order, seller can

accept it by performing – shipping or promising to ship the goods.

→ Adell had shipped resin so a contract between JOL and Adell was created.

Analysis

2. Implied warranties (2-314 and 2-315 in UCC)

- The seller warrants to the buyer that he has the right to sell them (2-314)- The goods are free of any liens or claims of other parities unless the buyer was given notice of the liens or claims at the time the contract was made (2-312)- The seller to select goods suitable for buyer’s purpose so the goods must be fit for that particular purpose

→ JOL could sue for more than the purchase price.

II. Precedent

Plaintiff: Alvery Pack

Issue:

- Plaintiff Alvery Pack purchase the subject motor home (RV) from Damon

- The RV was accompanied by a limited warranty from Damon

Defendant: Damon Copr.

Precedent

Limited warranty from Damon

Free from defects for a period of one year or 12,000 miles

Limited Warranty covers only materials, components or parts of the RV manufactured and finally assembled by Damon.

Provide for the repair or replacement of such defective material(s) or workmanship at no charge

Precedent But: Pack claims that:

- RV: out of service 168 days in the first year, 9 separate service dates for repairs- 8 defects that arose during one year that remained uncorrected

→ Pack sue Damon for amount of

moneys purchasing RV and his economic-loss

Precedent

According to UCC:

- Implied warranties: goods are merchantable, fit to buyer’s purpose

- Privities is not required to sustain an implied-warranty claim for economic losses

Precedent

- Accept the claim of plaintiff’s state-law express and implies-warranty claims. Damon had been suffered from defective motor home and Pack’s economic-loss

IV. Vietnam Implication

Plaintiff: Ho Chi Minh Chemical Company

Defendant: Tasco Saigon limited liability company

Court: Ho Chi Minh people court

Source: http://e-lawreview.com/

Vietnam Implication

Tasco supplied for 4000 Jumbo bags in values of 448.8 million VND

HCM Chemical complained about quality of bag that is worse than Tasco’s quality promised.

HCM Chemical sued and asked Tasco to compensate about damage

Vietnam Implication

Verdict: Tasco had to compensate total HCM Chemical company’s damage that is 307.114.286 VND

Điều 24/LTM “Hợp đồng mua bán hàng hoá được thể hiện bằng lời nói, bằng văn bản hoặc được xác lập bằng hành vi cụ thể”

Điều 39/LTM “Trường hợp hợp đồng không có quy định cụ thể thì hàng hoá được coi là không phù hợp với hợp đồng khi hàng hoá không bảo đảm chất lượng như chất lượng của mẫu hàng hoá mà bên bán đã giao cho bên mua”