On Monday, I mentioned the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (aka the "CISG"). The CISG generally applies to contracts for the sale of goods when the parties have their places of business in different contracting states. The focus is on where the parties' places of business are located, not the jurisdictions in which the parties were organized. In fact, both parties in the Asante Technologies, Inc. v. PMC-Sierra, Inc., 164 F.Supp.2d 1142 (2001) mentioned in Monday's blog were Delaware corporations. The plaintiff's place of business was in California. The defendant, however, maintained its corporate headquarters and substantial business operations in Canada. The District Court applied Article 10 of the CISG to find that for purposes of the CISG, defendant's place of business having the closest relationship to the contract was Canada. Thus, the court found that the contract implicated the CISG even though both parties were Delaware corporations. While on the subject of treaties, you may also want to consider the possible application of the United Nations Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, amended by the Protocol of 11 April 1980.
Read more detail on Recent Business Law Posts –Legal notice about the Can A Contract Between Two California Corporations Be Subject To A UN Treaty? rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to Can A Contract Between Two California Corporations Be Subject To A UN Treaty??