Cases Flashcards
(31 cards)
Lanco Int’l. v. Argentina
Wena Hotels v Egypt
Wena II
LG & E Energy v Argentina
Marvin Feldman v Mexico
US v Kay
Stichting v Schrieber
US v Kozeny
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co Case
(UK v Iran)
Facts
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AI), incorporated in the UK, held exclusive oil rights in Iran under a 1933 Concession Agreement. In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry, creating the National Iranian Oil Company. AI invoked arbitration, but Iran refused. The UK sued Iran in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), arguing jurisdiction under Iran’s 1930 Declaration, which accepted ICJ jurisdiction for disputes arising after its ratification concerning treaties or conventions.
Issue(s)
Did the ICJ have jurisdiction over the dispute under Iran’s 1930 Declaration?
Holding
The ICJ ruled 9-5 that it lacked jurisdiction. The phrase “subsequently… with regard to treaties or conventions” in Iran’s Declaration meant only disputes arising from treaties ratified after 1930. Since the Concession Agreement was not a treaty but a private contract, Iran had not consented to ICJ jurisdiction.
Conclusion/Impact
Iran won the case, avoiding an ICJ ruling on expropriation. However, this legal victory contributed to tensions that led to the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Iran, which continues to impact Iran-West relations.
JH Raynor v Hambros Bank
Here’s a concise case brief for J.H. Rayner & Co., Ltd. v. Hambro’s Bank, Ltd.:
Facts
J.H. Rayner & Co. (plaintiff) sought payment under a letter of credit issued by Hambro’s Bank (defendant) at the request of a Danish company. The letter of credit required documents for “Coromandel groundnuts,” but the plaintiff presented documents describing the goods as “machine-shelled groundnut kernels.” The bank refused payment, arguing non-compliance with the letter of credit terms. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and the bank appealed.
Issue(s)
Did the bank have the right to refuse payment due to a discrepancy in the description of the goods in the bill of lading?
Application
The case applies the strict compliance rule in documentary credits, as affirmed in Equitable Trust Co. of New York v. Dawson Partners, Ltd. and English, Scottish and Australian Bank, Ltd. v. Bank of South Africa. The principle requires that banks only accept documents that exactly match the credit terms.
Conclusion/Reasoning/Judgment
The Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of the bank. It held that the description “machine-shelled groundnut kernels” did not strictly comply with the term “Coromandel groundnuts,” and banks cannot be expected to interpret trade customs. Strict compliance protects banks from liability and ensures predictability in commercial transactions.
Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (The Barcelona Traction Case) (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase
Facts
Barcelona Traction (BT), a Canadian-incorporated company, operated in Spain, with most of its shareholders being Belgian nationals. When BT was declared bankrupt by a Spanish court, its assets were transferred to Spanish interests. Belgium sued Spain at the ICJ, alleging a “creeping nationalization” and seeking reparations under the 1927 Belgium-Spain Treaty of Conciliation.
Issue(s)
Did Belgium have standing to bring a claim on behalf of its nationals who were shareholders in BT?
Holding
The ICJ ruled that Belgium lacked standing. Only the state of incorporation (Canada) could bring a claim on behalf of the company. Shareholder rights under international law are not independent of corporate rights, and investment protections do not fall under erga omnes obligations enforceable by all states.
Conclusion/Impact
The case reaffirmed the principle that only the state of incorporation can seek remedies for corporate injuries under international law. It also highlighted tensions between national sovereignty and foreign investment protections.
Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (The ELSI Case) (U.S. v. Italy)
Facts
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), an Italian subsidiary of U.S.-based Raytheon, was shut down by Raytheon in 1968 due to financial losses. However, the mayor of Palermo seized control of the plant under an 1865 law citing “grave public necessity.” After ELSI declared bankruptcy, Raytheon pursued legal remedies in Italian courts but was unsuccessful. The U.S. State Department eventually took up the claim, alleging “creeping nationalization” in violation of the Italy-U.S. Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty. The case was brought before the ICJ in 1989, more than two decades after the events.
Issue
Did Italy’s actions constitute an unlawful expropriation under international law?
Holding
The ICJ ruled that it could not determine whether ELSI’s financial losses were due to Italy’s actions or Raytheon’s own mismanagement. As a result, the U.S. claim of expropriation failed.
Concerns Regarding Delay
Justice Delayed: The ruling came 21 years after the events, rendering effective legal remedies nearly meaningless.
Economic & Business Impact: A delay of this magnitude disrupts business certainty and foreign investment confidence.
Diplomatic Strains: The prolonged legal process strained U.S.-Italy diplomatic relations.
Non- Establishment Forms of IB
Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v. Pronuptia
Here’s a concise FIRAC case brief for your flashcard:
Case Brief: Pronuptia de Paris GmbH v. Pronuptia de Paris (1986)
Facts:
Mrs. Schillgalis, a franchisee of Pronuptia de Paris in Hamburg, disputed her obligation to pay royalties under her franchise agreement, arguing it violated EC competition law (Article 85(1) EEC, now Article 101(1) TFEU). The case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to determine whether such franchise agreements were subject to competition restrictions under EU law.
Issue:
Does Article 85(1) EEC (now Article 101(1) TFEU) apply to franchise agreements that establish a structured distribution system involving the transfer of trade names, trademarks, merchandising, and business methods?
Rule:
Under EU competition law, agreements that restrict competition, such as territorial exclusivity and market-sharing provisions, may be prohibited unless they are necessary for maintaining the franchise system’s integrity and reputation.
Application:
The ECJ ruled that franchise agreements do not inherently violate competition law. Provisions protecting franchisor know-how, business identity, and uniformity—such as quality controls, advertising approvals, and exclusive supply obligations—are permissible. However, clauses that divide markets between franchisees and the franchisor, restricting intra-brand competition, are anti-competitive and fall within Article 85(1)’s prohibition.
Conclusion:
Franchise agreements are generally valid under EU law, but territorial restrictions that prevent competition between franchisees and the franchisor violate Article 85(1). Provisions necessary to maintain brand reputation and prevent unfair use of franchisor know-how are exempt.
Letters of Credit
Urquhart Lindsay v. Eastern Bank
- UL was selling machinery to BDM.
- The letter of credit transaction,
Letters of Credit
Maurice O’Meara Co. v. Nat’l Park Bank
Letters of Credit
Hanil Bank v. PT. Bank
Letters of Credit
Mid American Tire v. PTZ Trading
Letters of Credit
American Bell v Iran
Letters of Credit
Harris Corp v Iran
IP and Gray Market Goods
K-Mart v Cartier
IP and Gray Market Goods
Lever Bros v US
IP and GMG
Quality King v L’Anza Research
IP and GMG
Kirtsaeng v John Wiley
biddell bros
BIDDELL BROTHERS v E CLEMENS HORST COMPANY COA
Facts:
- Matter at trial court.
- 2 contracts were entered into between E Clemens (D) and Vaux and Sons Ltd for the sale of hops.
- Contracts were assigned to Biddell Brothers (P) in 1908.
CIF contracts (cost, insurance, freight).
Dispute arose over the 1909 crop and Ds tendered documents for payment; P refused and insisted on inspecting the goods prior to payment.
D deemed this as a breach and cancelled the contract/refused to ship.
Issue:
- Does a buyer under a CIF contract have the right to inspect goods before payment if such inspection is not explicitly stipulated in the contract.
Holding:
- No, the buyer under a CIF contract must pay against tender of shipping docs and does not have the right to inspect the goods before payment unless explicitly agreed.
Reasoning
- The nature of a CIF contract means the seller must:
Ship the goods according to the contract
Arrange freight and insurance for the buyer’s benefit
Tender the relevant documents (Ie bill lading, invoice and insurance to the buyer).
Payment is to be made against these documents and not upon physical inspection.
* The buyer’s common law right to inspect the goods does not override the express contract terms.
* The seller’s obligation under this type of contract does not include retaining goods for inspection.
* Allowing inspection before payment would defeat the object of a cif contract.
Judgment
* Appeal was allowed
* D refusal to ship was a breach of contract
* Case clarified the obligations of each party under these contracts and emphasised payment is required against the shipping docs.
E. CLEMENS HORST COMPANY v BIDDELL BROS (HOUSE OF LORDS APPEAL)
Facts:
Biddell Brothers (buyers) entered into a c.i.f. (cost, insurance, freight) contract with E. Clemens Horst Company (sellers) for the sale of hops.
A dispute arose when the buyers refused to pay against shipping documents, insisting on inspecting the goods upon delivery.
The sellers treated this as a breach, canceled the contract, and refused to ship the goods.
The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the buyers, holding that they had a right to inspect the goods before payment.
Procedural History:
Trial Court (Hamilton J.): Ruled for the sellers, holding buyers in breach.
Court of Appeal: Reversed, ruling for buyers.
House of Lords: Reversed the Court of Appeal and restored the trial court’s judgment for the sellers.
Issue:
Can a buyer under a c.i.f. contract refuse to pay against tender of shipping documents and instead demand inspection of goods before payment?
Holding:
No, under a c.i.f. contract, payment must be made against the tender of shipping documents, and the buyer cannot insist on inspecting the goods before payment.
Reasoning:
Delivery under a c.i.f. contract:
Section 28 of the Sale of Goods Act specifies payment is against delivery.
Delivery of a bill of lading while goods are at sea is treated as delivery of the goods.
Timing of tender:
No provision in the contract specifies that tender of the bill of lading must occur after the goods arrive, are landed, or are inspected.
The seller may tender the bill of lading at a reasonable time.
Established commercial practice:
The essence of a c.i.f. contract is that payment is linked to shipping documents, not to physical delivery or inspection of goods.
Requiring inspection before payment contradicts the purpose and practicality of c.i.f. contracts.
Judgment:
Appeal allowed.
Trial court judgment in favor of the sellers restored.
Significance:
This case reaffirms the principles of c.i.f. contracts, emphasizing the buyer’s obligation to pay against shipping documents without insisting on prior inspection of the goods. It underscores the importance of established commercial practices and statutory provisions in resolving contract disputes.
