Al-Haddad Commodities Corp. v. Toepfer International Asia Pte., Ltd.

485 F. Supp. 2d 677 (2007)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Al-Haddad Commodities Corp. v. Toepfer International Asia Pte., Ltd.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
485 F. Supp. 2d 677 (2007)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Al-Haddad Commodities Corp. (ACC) (plaintiff) entered a contract to purchase rice from Toepfer International Asia Pte., Ltd. (Toepfer) (defendant) and have the rice shipped from the United States to Iraq. Toepfer was unable to ship the rice by the set contract deadline due to an inability to secure a shipping vessel. Pursuant to the parties’ contract, ACC initiated arbitration against Toepfer before the U.S. Rice Millers Association (RMA). The RMA set the hearing 11 weeks out, for December 12, 2006, in Houston, Texas, and refused to reschedule the date despite Toepfer’s request for more time to conduct discovery. Toepfer’s counsel was in England, and the parties’ contract was governed by English law. The arbitration panel ordered expert opinions on the topic of English law to be submitted by a date in early December 2006. Both Toepfer and ACC proffered expert opinions after that date. The panel nonetheless admitted all the opinions in evidence. ACC’s counsel requested in advance that Sahib Al-Haddad, ACC’s president, be allowed to testify via video conference due to unspecified health issues. The panel agreed. Later, because there was no video-conferencing capability, the panel allowed Al-Haddad to testify telephonically under direct and cross-examination. Al-Haddad’s testimony was duplicative of other evidence. The main dispute in the case was whether Toepfer’s nondelivery of rice was excused by ACC’s failure to obtain a bank guarantee for demurrage, or costs associated with delays in unloading. The arbitration panel ruled in ACC’s favor, finding that Toepfer had waived ACC’s breach by failing to timely load and ship the rice. In district court, ACC moved to confirm the award, and Toepfer moved to vacate the award based primarily on grounds of arbitrator misconduct.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Doumar, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership