Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 10/31 Principles of Interpretation Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 1960 Facts : Plaintiff says chicken means a young chicken, suitable for broiling and frying. Defendant says “chicken” means any bird of that genus that meets contract specifications on weight and quality, including fowl or stewing chicken. Plaintiff : (1) while the communications between the two were primarily in German, they used the English word “chicken” because this meant young chickens whereas the German word for chicken was ambiguous. (2) there was a definite trade usage that “chicken” meant “young chicken.” Court : (1) defendant asked plaintiff what kind of chicken he wanted and he said “any kind of chickens” and that this included the German word. (2) defendant was just starting
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: out in the industry and plaintiff didn’t prove he knew of this usage. Issue : what is chicken? Holding : judgment for defendant. Roy Notes : *Types of Parole Evidence : • Regulations • Usage of trade • Course of performance – how parties have dealt with each other in this case • Course of dealing – history of how parties dealt with each other • Reasonableness • Price – 33 cents. Young chickens were 35 cents in market. Old chickens were 30 cents. Defendant says he obviously expected to make a profit. Thus, plaintiff should’ve known he was selling old chickens. *Order of Importance : 1. Course of performance 2. Course of dealing 3. Usage of trade...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online