FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY West Reporter Image (PDF) 635 F.3d 1106 Briefs and Other Related Documents Judges and Attorneys United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. DINGXI LONGHAI DAIRY, LTD., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. BECWOOD TECHNOLOGY GROUP L.L.C., Defendant–Appellee No. 10–2612. Submitted: Feb. 14, 2011. Filed: Feb. 17, 2011. Background: Chine manufacturer of organic inulin, a dietary fiber ud in procesd foods, brought action against Minnesota distributor alleging breach of contract for distributor's rejection of and failure to pay for two purportedly non-conforming shipments. Distributor counterclaimed for breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual and/or prospective economic relations and breach of express and implied warranty. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, David S. Doty, Senior District Judge, 2008 WL 2690287, dismisd manufacturer's claims in part. Manufacturer appealed. Holding: The Court of Appeals held that manufacturer stated breach of contract claim against distributor. Reverd and remanded. West Headnotes [1] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 343 Sales 343VII Remedies of Seller 343VII(E) Actions for Price or Value 343k352 Pleading 343k353 Declaration, Complaint, or Petition 下班后 343k353(6) k. Performance of contract by ller. Most Cited Cas 343 Sales KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 343VII Remedies of Seller 343VII(E) Actions for Price or Value 343k352 Pleading 343k353 Declaration, Complaint, or Petition 343k353(8) k. Nonpayment of price and amount due and unpaid. Most Cited Cas Allegations by Chine manufacturer of organic inulin, a dietary fiber ud in procesd foods, that manufacturer performed contractual duty to deliver and distributor rejected and failed to pay for shipments, stated breach of contract claim against distributor, although fact that manufacturer recalled shipments before they reached buyer could preclude manufacturer's recovery of full contract price. [2] KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote 170A Federal Civil Procedure 170AXI Dismissal 170AXI(B) Involuntary Dismissal 170AXI(B)3 Pleading, Defects In, in General 170Ak1773 k. Clear or certain nature of insufficiency. Most Cited Cas Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any t of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. *1107 Anthony J. Pruzinsky, New York, NY, Justin M. Heilig, New York, NY, and Delin Qu, Saint Paul, MN, on the brief, for appellant. There is no counl of record nor was any brief filed by appellee. 拍证件照Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Dingxi Longhai Dairy (“Dingxi”) agreed to ship 612 metric tons of Inulin, a dietary fiber extract, to Becwood Technology Group (“Becwood”), a Minnesota distributor. The contract called for four shipments from the port of Tianjin–Xingang, China, to Londonderry, New Hampshire. Becwood received the first two shipments, paid for one, and refud to pay for the cond becau of mold on the exterior of the packaging. Dingxi recalled the third and fourth shipments before they reached their destination and sued Becwood for breach of contract and fraudulent misreprentation. The district court granted Becwood's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisd Dingxi's claims relating to shipments three and four. Nearly two years later, the district court entered a final order granting Dingxi summary judgment on its breach-of-contract claim for shipment two. Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Tech. Grp., L.L.C., 718 F.Supp.2d 1019, 1024 (D.Minn.2010). Dingxi now appeals the earlier order dismissing its breach-of-contract claims for shipments three and four. FN1 We rever. FN1. Dingxi did not appeal dismissal of its misreprentation claims. Accordingly, that portion of the partial dismissal order is affirmed. It is undisputed that the contract was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), the “international analogue” to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Chicago Prime Packers, Inc. v. Northam Food Trading Co., 408 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir.2005). In applying the Convention, we look to the language of its provisions and the “general principles on which it is bad.” CISG Art. 7(2). “Calaw interpreting analogous provisions of Article 2 ... may also inform a court where the language of the relevant CISG provisions tracks that of the UCC.” *1108 Delchi Carrier SpA v. Rotorex Corp., 71 F.3d 1024, 1028 (2d Cir.1995). With regard to pleading requirements, “the Convention's structure confirms what common n (and the common law) dictate as the universal elements of [a breach-of-contract] action: formation, performance, breach and damages.” Magellan Int'l Corp. v. Salzgitter Handel GmbH, 76 F.Supp.2d 919, 924 (N.D.Ill.1999). For its breach-of-contract claim, Dingxi's complaint alleged that it timely delivered all four shipments “F.O.B. to Tianjin–Xingang Port, China,” as specified in the signed purcha order; that Becwood failed to pay for the last three shipments; and that Dingxi was therefore entitled to recover $1,415,086 “together with interest, disburment, costs, expens and reasonable attorneys' fees.” Under the UCC, this would plainly be a § 2–709 “Action for the Price” of the goods by the ller. Under the CISG, it was a claim by the ller for breach of contract subject to the remedy provisions in Articles 61–65 and 74–77. See CISG Art. 61(1). Becwood moved to dismiss the claim regarding shipments three and four on the ground that a ller who recalls goods before they reach the buyer may not “recover as damages, even if you assume that there's a breach from the buyer, the very contract price of tho goods that the ller retained.” The district court agreed. It dismisd the claim on the ground that damages following contract avoidance are governed by CISG Art. 76, and therefore “Dingxi has failed to asrt cognizable damages on shipments 3 and 4.” FN2 FN2. Article 73(2) of the CISG provides: If one party's failure to perform any of his obligations in respect of any instalment gives the other party good grounds to conclude that a fundamental breach of contract will occur with respect to future installments, he may declare the contract avoided for the future, provided that he does so within a reasonable time. Thus, “avoidance” of a contract under Article 73(2) is analogous to “cancellation” under the UCC. See §§ 2–106(4); 2–612(3). Article 76(1) provides as to remedies: If the contract is avoided and there is a current price for the goods, the party claiming damages may, if he has not made a purcha or resale under article 75, recover the difference between the price fixed by the contract and the current price at the time of avoidance as well as any further damages recoverable under article 74. Article 74 provides that damages for breach of contract “consist of a sum equal to the loss, including loss of profit.” Compare the ller's remedies provided in UCC §§ 2–703, 2–706, 2–708(1), and 2–708(2), which are “esntially cumulative in nature.” R.E. Davis Chem. Corp. v. Diasonics, Inc., 826 F.2d 678, 681–685 (7th Cir.1987). We can agree that it is highly unlikely—though not inconceivable—that an aggrieved ller in this situation would recover the full contract price for shipments three and four. But Becwood's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the breach-of-contract claim was nonetheless ill-conceived: The sufficiency of a pleading is tested by the Rule 8(a)(2) statement of the claim for relief and the demand for judgment is not considered part of the claim for that purpo, as numerous cas have held. Thus, the lection of an improper remedy in the Rule 8(a)(3) demand for relief will not be fatal to a party's pleading if the statement of the claim indicates the pleader may be entitled to relief of some other type. 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 1255 at 508–09 (3d ed.2004); e Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir.2002); Laird v. Integrated Resources, Inc., 897 F.2d 826, 841–42 (5th Cir.1990); Schoonover v. Schoonover, 172 F.2d 526, 530 (10th Cir.1949). The amount of damages to be recovered is *1109 bad upon the proof, not the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c). [1] [2] Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a court may dismiss a complaint only if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any t of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (emphasis added; quotation omitted). Here, Dingxi's complaint stated a breach-of-contract claim—performance of its contractual duty to deliver and the buyer's refusal to pay. A fact outside the pleading became part of the Rule 12 record, apparently without objection—that Dingxi recalled shipments three and four before they reached the buyer. That fact will likely preclude recovery of the full contract price. But if Dingxi proves that Becwood breached the contract as to shipments three and four, it is almost certain to be entitled to some monetary relief. Accordingly, the district court erred in granting Becwood's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The order dismissing Dingxi's breach-of-contract claims relating to shipments three and four is reverd. The ca is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion, which may include the matter raid in Dingxi's motion to this court for leave to ask the district court to modify its order granting summary judgment on shipment two. As the ca is now remanded, that motion is denied as moot. See In re Modern Textile, Inc., 900 F.2d 1184, 1193 (8th Cir.1990). C.A.8 (Minn.),2011. Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Technology Group L.L.C. 635 F.3d 1106 Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top) • 2010 WL 3708484 (Appellate Brief) Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant (Sep. 8, 2010) Original Image of this Document (PDF) • 10-2612 (Docket) (Jul. 20, 2010) Judges and Attorneys (Back to top) Judges | Attorneys Judges Doty, Hon. David S. United States District Court, Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Loken, Hon. James B. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Melloy, Hon. Michael Joph United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Shepherd, Hon. Bobby E. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Litigation History Report | Judicial Motion Report | Judicial Reversal Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report | Profiler Attorneys Attorneys for Appellant Heilig, Justin New York, New York 10006 Litigation History Report | Profiler Pruzinsky, Anthony J. New York, New York 10006 Litigation History Report | Profiler Qu, Delin Arcadia, California 91007 Litigation History Report | Profiler END OF DOCUMENT | 仅供教育使用 西方记者形象 635 F.3d 1106 摘要、其他相关文件法官和辩护师 美国上诉法院 第八巡回法庭 定西陇海乳制品股份有限公司 原告上诉人 诉 BECWOOD技术集团 被告上诉人 NO.10-2612 递交：2011年2月14日 存档：2011年2月17日 背景：中国有机菊粉（一种用于食品加工的食用 纤维）制造商，对明尼苏达经销商违反合同条例， 为两个无法支付的不良装运商提供货物的行为提 出抗议。经销商为他违反合同的行为即侵权干涉 合同和/或未来预期的经济关系、违反表达和默认 担保的起诉提出反诉。美国明尼苏达地方法院的 最高地方法官David S.Doty,2008 WL 2690287驳 回了制造商的部分要求。制造商不满判定的结果 重新上诉。 决断:上诉法院认为制造商对经销商违法合同的索赔 撤销判决，发回重审。 西部批注 【1】批注中关键参考文件的关键引证 343销售 343Ⅶ卖方的救济方法 343Ⅶ（E）价格或价格方面的行动 艺术类留学343k352诉状 343k353报关、投诉和请求 343k353（6）k.卖方合同的绩效。案例中被引用 最多的案例。 343销售 批注中关键参考文献的关键引证 343 VII卖方的救济措施 343VII(E)价格和价值方面的行动 343k352诉状 343k353报关、投诉和请求 343k353(8)k.拒绝支付到期金额和未付款等高价 值物品。案件中被引用次数最多 中国有机菊粉（一种用于食品加工的食物纤维） 制造商申诉，制造商履行合了同中约定的运送的 责任，但是经销商拒绝收货而且没有为货物支付 货款，制造商对经销商违反合同条例的行为进行 索赔。尽管事实上制造商在未到达之前回收货物 买方能够阻止制造商恢复合同的全部价格。 总经理助理岗位职责【2】批注中的关键参考文件的关键引证 170A联邦民事诉讼法 170AXI上诉驳回 170AXI(B)驳回 170A XI（B）3一般而言，诉状、缺陷等 170Ak1773k.清除或某些性质的不足。案例中引用次数最多 根据联邦民事诉讼规则,只有在明确由于无法证 明起诉与事实相一致而导致不能给予任何救济的 情况下，法院才能驳回诉讼。同盟国原则、科特 迪瓦共和国拟定条款，12（b）（6），28U.S.C.A 1107 诉书上的申诉人：Anthony J.Pruzinsky,纽 约，Justin M.Heiling,纽约，和Delin Qu,圣保 罗 明尼苏达州 被告没有请名义上的法律顾问，也没有任何诉书 申请 在巡回法官：LOKEN,MELLOY和SHEPHERD 依法官判词。 定西陇海乳制品（后简称“定西”）同意运送612 公吨的菊粉（一种提取出的食用纤维）到明尼苏 达州的经销商Becwood技术集团（后简称 “Becwood”），合同要求货物分四批从中国天津 新港运送到伦敦德里郡新罕布什尔州。Becwood 收到了第一、二批货后，为支付第一批货物的货 款，而拒绝为另一批外部生了霉菌的货付款。定 西将第三、四批货物在到达目的地之前撤回了并 且起诉Becwood违反合同和发布欺骗性的言论。 地方法院给允许了Becwood Rule12(b)(6)的行 动，驳回了定西关于第三、四批货物的索赔诉讼。 大约两年之后，地方法院进行了终审裁定，即决 祛湿茶有哪些审判定西第二批货物违约不能要求索赔。 定西陇海乳制品有限股份公司诉Becwood技术集团 Grp,L.L.C.,718F.Supp.2d 1019,1024(D.Minn.2010) 现在定西上诉撤销早期第三、四批货物的违约索 赔的起诉。退了一步。 FN1.定西没有撤回有关Becwood误传的索赔。因 此，一部分上诉被部分驳回是肯定的。 根据国际货物销售合同（CISG），“国际模拟” 统一商法典（UCC）第二章这份合同属于联合国大 会的管辖范围。芝加哥Prime罐头有限公司诉 Northam食品贸易公司。480 F.3d 894,898(7th Cir.2005).在实施公约时，我们所期望的各项规 定和语言，都是基于一般原则之上。CISG条款.7 （2）提到：“第二章案例法在解释类似的规定时， 由UCC CISG的规定程序,可能也通知了相关语言 的法院。”*1108 Delchi 载波SPA公司诉Rotorex 公司。71 F.3d 1024,1028(2d Cir.1995) 关于诉状的请求，“大会组织确定以常识（和 例法）的指示作为普遍的部分【违约】行为，如： 信息、性能、违约行为和损害赔偿金的审判依据。” Magellan国际公司诉Salzgitter Handel股份有限公 司，76 F.Supp.2d 919,924 (N.D. ⅠII.1999). 针对违约的索赔，定西的诉状宣称，按照签署 采购单的说明，在中国天津新港口岸采用FOB条 款，及时的运送了全部四批货物，但是Becwood 未能为余下的三批货物付款。因此定西有权索回 连同利息、支出、成本、费用以及辩护律师费在 内的1,415,086元。根据UCC，这显然是卖方的 “§2-709”商品的价格行动。根据CISG，这是由 于卖方违反了合同标的在第61-65和74-77章补 救措施的规定要求的索赔。 由CISG第61章第一条：Bcewood 动议撤销关于 第三、四批货物的索赔，因为即使卖方在货物到 达目的地之前就把货召回了，即便是假设买方违 约，卖方保留了货物的合同价格 FN2CISG第73(2)章提供： 如果一方当事人不履行关于分期付款的义务，对 方当事人就会认为会违反对于今后各批货物的合 同，他会宣告对未来的合同周年革命他在一段合 理时间内如此做。 因此，在第73（2）章中，一个合同的“回避”类似于UCC中的“撤销”。参考§§ 2-106(4); 2 - 612(3)。第76（1）条中关于合同补济中的提 供： 如果这个合同被宣告，并且货物有现价，如果没 有根据第75条规定作出购买或转售，这一方就会 生命损害赔偿可能修复合同订的价格和免除的现 价之间的差异，也会修复第74章红的以后可能产生 损害。 第74条规定违反的损失“由一些损失组成，包括 利益损失” 比较UCC§§2703提供的卖方补救方法和在本质 上累积自然规律。”的东西 我们赞成虽然能想象，受侵害的卖家在这种情况 下也不可能恢复出货3个和4个下的合同订的价 格。但是Becwood解除合同声明的动机确实是不 妥当的： 请求的充分性被关于评判的补救和需求的声明测 试不被认为是为发的一部分判断，向众多案例一 样已被保留。因此，在第八条中对不当救济规则 选择时如果索赔的申诉显示辩护律师可能有权救 济其他的类型，那么对救济的需求将不会给一方 的辩护带来致命的危害。 5Wright&Miller,联邦实务和程序：根据民法在 508-09（3d ed.2004）中3d § 1255；览 Bontkowski 诉Smith,305 F.3d 757,762(7th Cir.2002);Laird 诉Integrated资源有限公司，897 F.2d 826,841-42(5th Cir.1990); Schoonover诉 Schoonover，172 F.2d 526,530(10th Cir.1994). 重新获得的赔偿金的数量是以*1109的校对为依 据，而不是根据原告的诉状。览Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(c)【1】【2】。 根据民事诉讼法中的联邦法规，“一个法院只有 在明确能够证明起诉是与事实相一致的情况下没 有允许的救济时，才可以驳回诉讼。” Swierkiewicz诉Sorema N.A.534 U.S.506, 514,122S. Ct.992, 152 LED.2D 1(2002)(重点强 调；报价省略)。在这个案件中，定西的诉状阐明 了一个违约的索赔：我方履行了合约中运送货物 的义务，买方却决绝为其付款。这个是诉状中没 提到的被记录在案的事实，定西在第三、四批货 物到达买方前就将其撤回是不争的事实。这一事 实可能会使赔偿不能达到最大的合约价格。但是 办公成本定西如果能证明Becwood违反合约中关于第三、 四批货物的约定，定西还是有权获得某些货币方 面的救济。因此，地方法院在允许Becwood不予 理会的要求是错误的。Ruke 12(b)(6) 下达因为三、四批货物的责任颠倒而驳回定西违约索赔的命令。这个案子最终发回重申，以防与观点不一致而进行跟深一层诉讼，其中可能包括追加定西要求这个法院委托地方法院修改允许对 第二批货物即决审判的命令。基于案件现已发回 重申，此提议经大会讨论最终被拒绝。览 关于现 代纺织品有限公司，900 F.2d 84,1193(8th Cir. 1990). C.A.8 (Minn.),2011. 定西陇海乳制品股份有限公司 诉 Becwood科技 集团 L.L.C 635 F.3d 1106 摘要和其他相关文件（回到顶部） 2010 WL 3708484 (受理上诉的摘要)原告上诉人 的诉书（2010年9月8日） 文件的原始图像（PDF） 10-2612(摘要)（2010年7月20日） 法官和辩护律师（回到顶部） 法官 | 辩护律师 法官 ·Doty,Hon.David S. 美国地方法院，明尼苏达州 明尼阿波利斯市，明尼苏达州 55415 诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告 | 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器 ·Loken,Hon.James B. 美国上诉法院，第八巡回法庭 St.Louis,Missouri 63102 诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告 | 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器 ·Melloy,Hon.Michael Joph 美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭 St.Louis,Missouri 63102 诉讼历史报告 | 司法撤销报告 | 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器 · Shepherd, Hon. Bobby E. 美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭 St.Louis,Missouri 63102 诉讼历史报告 | 司法请求报告 | 司法撤销报告 | 挑战司法专家报告 | 分析器 辩护律师 上诉人的辩护律师 · Heilig, Justin异地恋成功率 纽约，纽约10006 诉讼历史报告 | 分析器 微信技巧大全·Pruzinsky, Anthony J. 纽约，纽约10006 诉讼历史报告 | 分析器 ·Qu, Delin 阿卡迪亚，加利福尼亚 91007 诉讼历史报告 | 分析器 文件完结 |
本文发布于:2023-07-09 16:10:41，感谢您对本站的认可！
本文链接：https://www.wtabcd.cn/fanwen/fan/89/1074608.html
版权声明：本站内容均来自互联网，仅供演示用，请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系，我们将在24小时内删除。
| 留言与评论（共有 0 条评论） |
