Order Description

 

 

 

 

 

CASE:
The case involved two parties in the sale of wine where the seller, a wine maker, requires, as part of the terms of his offer, that the answer shall delivered in written form, with a hand written
signature. The form provided by the seller also includes a forum selection clause that states that the contract will be regulated by the law of the United Kingdom. On 2 September, a wine producer
(defendant) based in London, wrote to a perspective DISTRIBUTOR (plaintiff) based in Spain, offering to sell him the wine from his last fantastic vintage, requiring an answer in the course of post
BY SEPTEMBER 7, explaining that due to the high demand of his wine, if he doesn’t receive a written acceptance by September 7, he will sell it to other clients. The defendant (the SELLER, the wine
maker) misdirected the letter so that the perspective BUYER (the distributor) did not receive it until September 5. The BUYER, very interested in that wine, posted its acceptance on the same day
(SEPTEMBER 5) and in the meanwhile he contacted several wine shops for re-selling to them this great wine. Unfortunately his acceptance was not received by the wine maker until September 9.
Meanwhile, on September 8, the wine SELLER, not having received an answer by September 7 as it had expected, sold the wine to another distributor. The plaintiff (the first distributor),got really
disappointed and filed a lawsuit claiming that the contract was validly concluded and therefore the wine was supposed to be sold and given to him. The SELLER argued that there could not be a
binding contract until the answer was actually received, and until then the SELLER was free to sell the wine to another buyer.

 

 

 

– Is the defendant correct? analyze this case, taking also in consideration the forum selection clause provided by the contract.
– Would the defense of the seller more effective, if the contract was governed by the law of a civil law country (either Germany or France)?