Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
190 F. Supp. 116 (1960)
Frigaliment Importing Co. (Frigaliment) (plaintiff), a Swiss company, offered to buy chicken for $0.33/lb. from B.N.S. International Sales Corp. (BNS) (defendant), an American corporation. The negotiations were primarily in German, however Frigaliment used the English word "chicken" to mean young chickens, instead of the German word "huhn," which includes stewing chickens (fowl). Frigaliment intended to purchase only young chickens suitable for broiling and frying (broilers). BNS, which was new to the trade, interpreted Frigaliment’s order for “chickens” as encompassing all types of chicken. The market rate for fowl at the time was $0.30/lb., while broilers were between $0.35 and $0.37/lb. Both the cablegrams exchanged by the parties and the contracts stated that the chicken was to be “Grade A, Government Inspected,” and the Department of Agriculture’s regulations were incorporated by reference. BNS shipped primarily fowl to Switzerland. After the first shipment, Frigaliment complained but allowed BNS to make the second shipment. Frigaliment sued BNS for breach of warranty, claiming that BNS delivered goods that did not meet the description in the contract. At trial, Frigaliment’s expert claimed that “chicken” meant broilers in the trade, but his testimony was undermined by the fact that he specified “broilers” in his own contracts. One of BNS’s suppliers argued that “chicken” did not include fowl, but admitted that it asked whether BNS wanted “fowl or frying chickens” when BNS asked for “chickens.” Frigaliment offered evidence that at least some suppliers and journals differentiate between “chickens” and “fowl.” Nevertheless, BNS’s experts testified that in the trade, the term “chicken” encompasses broilers and fowl. Further, BNS pointed out that the Department of Agriculture’s grading regulations include broilers and fowl in the definition of the term “chicken.” The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the question.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.