Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. v. Becwood Technology Group, LLC
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
635 F.3d 1106 (2011)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Dingxi Longhai Dairy, Ltd. (Dingxi) (plaintiff) contracted with Becwood Technology Group, LLC (Becwood) (defendant) to ship 612 tons of a dietary-fiber extract in four shipments from Tianjin-Xingang, China to Londonderry, New Hampshire. The contract was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Becwood received and paid for the first shipment from Dingxi. However, Becwood refused to pay for the second shipment because there was mold on the outside of the packaging. Dingxi recalled the third and fourth shipments and sued Becwood for breach of contract in federal district court. Dingxi’s complaint asserted that Dingxi had timely delivered all four shipments “FOB to Tianjin-Xingang Port, China,” as required by the parties’ signed agreement. Dingxi further asserted that Becwood had failed to pay for three of the shipments and that Dingxi was thus entitled to recover over $1.4 million. Becwood moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Dingxi’s breach-of-contract claims based on the third and fourth shipments. Becwood argued that a seller that recalled goods before the goods reached the buyer could not recover the contract price of the goods. The district court granted Becwood’s motion to dismiss, and Dingxi appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
