案例分析题国际商法

一．Is there any contract between X and Y

?On April 4, Company X, with its place of business i n China, sent an offer by e-mail to Company Y, with its place of business in Australia. The offer

concerned 50,000 meters hand-printed cotton cloth and said it would remain

open until April 30. On April 10, Company Y answered by e-mail : “The price is

too high, and we are not interested in the offer.” But on April 20, the ma of Company Y changed his mind and sent another e-mail to accept the April 4

offer.

?Question: Is there any contract between company X and Company Y

?Answer and Analysis

?No. Since both China and Australia are Contracting States to the CISG, according to Article 1 would apply here. After receiving the offer of 50,000

meters hand-printed cotton cloth, on April 10, Company Y stated that they were

not interested in the offer, which rejected the offer. On April 20, the e-mail sent

to accept the April 4 offer should be regarded as a new offer instead of

acceptance. Therefore, there was no contract between Company X and Company

Y.

二．WORLD-WIDE VOLKSEAGEN V.WOODSON

?United States Supreme Court,1980

?FACTS: The Robinsons bought a new Audi from Seaway V olkswagen in New York state. While traveling through the State of Oklahoma, the Audi was

rearended, c ausing a fire which severely b urned Mrs. Robinson and her two

children.

?The Robinsons sued in tort侵权行为in Oklahoma versus retailer Seaway and wholesaler W orld-Wide Volkswagen, b oth New York corporations that did no

business in Oklahonma. Both defendants entered special appearances to contest the trial court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over them; Woodson was the

trial judge.

?ISSUE: Does the State of Oklahoma have personal jurisdiction over an auto retailer and wholesaler who so not sell cars in the state

?HOLDING: NO.

?LAW :Under the U.S. Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, t here must be minimum contacts among the defendants, t he forum,

and the claim being made by plaintiffs in order for the state court to exercise

personal jurisdiction属人管辖权

?EXPLANATION:Petitioners carried on no activities in Oklahoma , performed no sales or services there, and did not solicit business there through

advertising or agents. The “foreseeability”of their cars being driven in

Oklahoma is not enough to hale them into court there.

?ORDER: Case against the retailer and distributor is dismissed.

三．

’s ?FACTS：A US foreign trade zone(FTZ) subzone was set up at Nissan Motor plant in Smyrna, Tennessee. Nissan then imported production machinery into the zone to assemble p arts that were manufactured in Japan for sale in cars in the