Specific Cases
Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroder Banking Corp.
A contracted to purchase hog bristles from B in India. C issued an irrevocable letter of credit to B payable upon presentation of the proper documents B filled 50 cases with worthless rubbish to obtain an ocean bill of lading showing the shipment of 50 cases of hog bristles Document and draft were presented to C by the D who acted as an agent for B A brought this suit against C to restrain it from paying on the letter of credit Court ruled in favor of A because he would have suffered an irreparable harm as a result of fraud in the transaction
Banco General v. CitiBank International Case
A entered into a contract with B to buy an irrigation system Parties agreed that a commercial letter of credit governed by the UCP would be used to finance the purchase Discrepancies in First letter of credit were ignored, however discrepancies in the second letter of credit were used as a means to deny claim
Semetex Corp. v. UBAF Arab American Bank
A entered into an agreement with B to provide them with an ion implanter. A was to be paid $7,462,500 through an irrevocable documentary letter of credit The letter of credit conditioned payment solely on presentation of commercial invoices, it didn't require proof that the implanter passed to a designated carrier before payment could be made President Bush issued an executive order blocking Iraqi assets in the United States, so the implanted was kept in Massachusetts A demanded payment from C but was rejected but enforced by the court
Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States case
A imported microscopes for neurosurgical use into the US. B classified them as a microscope with a means for photographing the image while A argued that they should be classified as instruments used for medical and surgical sciences A brought action however the court affirmed the government's decision due to classification by common and commercial meaning
Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States
A imported shower curtain sets containing an outer textile curtain, an inner plastic liner, and plastic hooks B classified it under heading 6303 at a duty of 12.8% due to its outer curtain but A wanted it classified under heading 3924 at a duty of 3.36% due to its inner plastic liner Court ruled that the set was to be judged on the part that gives it its essential character and thus ruled with A in saying the liner gave it essential character
Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park Bank of New York
A issued a letter of credit to B at the request of C. The letter of credit did not require a testing certificate When B's invoice and draft were presented to the bank, the bank refused payment because it couldn't test the paper B transferred their rights to collect payment to D (a financial institution) who sued to collect the full amount from A Court ruled that A was obligated to pay B's drafts as it was separate and distinct from the contract of sale between the buyer and seller
Courtaulds North America, Inc. v. North Carolina National Bank
A issued an irrevocable letter of credit promising to honor drafts of B covering shipments of "100% Acrylic Yarn" B presented its draft with a commercial invoice but described the merchandise as "Imported Acrylic Yarns". The packing list stapled to the invoice had cartons marked "100% Acrylic" The bank refused to accept the draft because of the discrepancy between the letter of credit and commercial invoice Appellate court ruled that the bank is not liable as the description of goods in the invoice did not match the description of goods in the credit
United States v. Chmielewski
A sold slot machines to South Africa at an import duty of 69%. In a scheme to avoid the duty, A sent false invoices understating the value of the machines and costing South Africa S1.4 million After his conviction of the crime, A appealed saying that the loss of tariff revenue occurred outside the U.S. and therefore shouldn't be considered in his sentencing The court ruled that it should be considered in his sentencing because he made false statements on US export documents and that it was a crime against the United States
Ferrostall Metals Corp. v. United States
A tried to enter Steel products at the Port of Seattle. The Steel originated in Japan but had been hot dipped in New Zealand A identified New Zealand as the country of origin however Customs ruled that the country of origin was Japan. Due to an agreement between Japan and the US, Japanese steel couldn't be imported The plaintiff sued as he thought that hot dipping the steel caused a substantial transformation and that the country of origin should be New Zealand The court ruled that hot dipping the steel was substantial transformation and that it could be imported to the United States
American Bell International Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran Case
Court could not enjoin the bank from paying $30 million on the standby LOC to A which was callable "at any time and for any reason"
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
A put out an ad saying that they'll give $100 to anybody that contracts influenza while using their product in the recommended manner After B contracted influenza, she tried to recover the $100 Under British contract law, the ad was found to be a "definite and operative offer" and since the plaintiff accepted, she was entitled to the $100
Securities Exchange Commission v. Siemens Aktiengesellchaft
A used an elaborate payment scheme to pay bribes to foreign government officials to obtain business (approx.. $1.4 billion in total) Eventually A agreed to pay $1.6 billion in fines to resolve corruption-related charges A was also appointed an independent compliance monitor from the FCPA for a period of 4 years
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Review Opinion
Extremely in-depth to make sure there is 0 tolerance and room for corruption
Electra-Amambay S.R.L. v Compania Anartica Paulista Ind.
The Paraguayan government enacted a law to protect Paraguayan representatives of foreign companies stating that should they be fired for any reason other than "just cause", they have to pay the rep an extraordinary sum of money A fired it's Paraguayan rep (B) without good cause so B brought action against A
Québec (Procureur general) c. Enterprises W.F.H. Itée
The accused challenged the validity of Article 58 which requires the predominance of French on bilingual commercial signs Although the accused didn't disagree that Article 58 had been violated, they believed that it was void under the Equality Clause of the Charter of Rights Court affirmed that the law could be upheld
