国商案例翻译

admin管理员组

文章数量:1531733

2023年12月29日发(作者：)

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: Chinese manufacturer of

organic inulin, a dietary fiber used in

processed 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,

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 ,2008 WL 2690287驳

tortious interference with contractual

回了制造商的部分要求。制造商不满判定的结果

and/or prospective economic relations and

重新上诉。

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,

dismissed manufacturer's claims in part.

Manufacturer appealed.

Holding: The Court of Appeals held that

manufacturer stated breach of contract

claim against distributor.

Reversed 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

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

343k352诉状

343k353 Declaration,

Complaint, or Petition

343k353(6) k.

Performance of contract by seller. Most

Cited Cases

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 Cases

Allegations by Chinese manufacturer of

organic inulin, a dietary fiber used in

processed 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.

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。

[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 Cases

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 set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.

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 counsel of record nor was any

brief filed by appellee.

Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD,

【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 sky,纽

约，Justin g,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

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

refused to pay for the second because 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

misrepresentation. The district court

granted Becwood's Rule 12(b)(6) motion

and dismissed 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

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

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

Tech. Grp., L.L.C., 718 .2d 1019,

1024 (.2010). Dingxi now appeals

the earlier order dismissing its

breach-of-contract claims for shipments

three and four.

FN1 We reverse.

FN1. Dingxi did not appeal dismissal of its

misrepresentation 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

based.‖ CISG Art. 7(2). ―Caselaw

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

Grp,L.L.C.,.2d

1019,1024(.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)

1024, 1028 (2d Cir.1995). With regard to

pleading requirements, ―the Convention's

structure confirms what common sense

(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 .2d 919, 924

(.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 purchase 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, disbursement, costs,

expenses and reasonable attorneys' fees.‖

Under the UCC, this would plainly be a §

2–709 ―Action for the Price‖ of the goods

by the seller. Under the CISG, it was a

claim by the seller for breach of contract

subject to the remedy provisions in Articles

61–65 and 74–77. See CISG Art. 61(1).

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 .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。

Becwood moved to dismiss the claim

regarding shipments three and four on the

由CISG第61章第一条：Bcewood 动议撤销关于

ground that a seller 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 those goods that the

seller retained.‖ The district court agreed.

It dismissed the claim on the ground that

damages following contract avoidance are

governed by CISG Art. 76, and therefore

―Dingxi has failed to assert 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‖

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);

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

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

a purchase 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 seller's remedies provided in

UCC §§ 2–703, 2–706, 2–708(1), and

2–708(2), which are ―essentially

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 seller in this situation would

recover the full contract price for

shipments three and four. But Becwood's

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：

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the

breach-of-contract claim was nonetheless

ill-conceived:

The sufficiency of a pleading is tested by

请求的充分性被关于评判的补救和需求的声明测

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

purpose, as numerous cases have held.

Thus, the selection 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); see 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 based upon the proof,

not the pleadings. See .P. 54(c).

[1] [2] Under the Federal Rules

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.P.

54(c)【1】【2】。

of Civil Procedure, ―a court may dismiss a

complaint only if it is clear that no relief

could be granted under any set of facts

that could be proved consistent with the

allegations.‖ Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.,

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。”

534 U.S. 506, 514, 122 . 992, 152

.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 reversed. The

case is remanded for further proceedings

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

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

not inconsistent with this opinion, which

may include the matter raised 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 case 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

重申，此提议经大会讨论最终被拒绝。览 关于现

th

代纺织品有限公司，900 F.2d 84,1193(8Cir.

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.

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 Joseph

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth

Circuit

St. Louis, Missouri 63102

Litigation History Report | Judicial Reversal

Report | Judicial Expert Challenge Report |

Profiler

·Doty, 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, B.

美国上诉法院，第八巡回法庭

,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,l Joseph

美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭

,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.

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

· Shepherd, Hon. Bobby E.

美国上诉法院。第八巡回法庭

,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

纽约，纽约10006

诉讼历史报告 | 分析器

·Pruzinsky, Anthony J.

纽约，纽约10006

诉讼历史报告 | 分析器

 Qu, Delin

Arcadia, California 91007

Litigation History Report | Profiler

END OF DOCUMENT

·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

国商案例翻译

CASE 6

姓名：马丽娜

学号：1042317

班级：国贸3班

本文标签： 定西货物报告制造商法院