United Technologies International Pratt & Whitney Commercial Engine Business v. Malev Hungarian Airlines
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary
GF. I. 31 349/1992/9 Translated in 13 J.L. & Com. 31-47 (1993)
- Written by Ryan McCarthy, JD
Facts
Pratt & Whitney Commercial Engine Business (Pratt) (plaintiff) negotiated with Malev Hungarian Airlines (Malev) (defendant) for the sale of jet engines. On December 14, 1990, Pratt sent two purchase-support offers to Malev, one for Boeing planes and the other for Airbus planes. Each offer included the choice between two different engine options, for a total of four possible 4000-series engines. On December 21, 1990, Malev stated in a letter that it had selected the 4000-series engine, but did not sign a specific offer indicating which engine. Malev eventually informed Pratt that it would not purchase the engines. Pratt sued for breach of contract, arguing that Malev had accepted Pratt’s December 14 offer. Malev contended that the offer was not definite under Article 14 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), because the price of the contract could not be determined until an exact engine was selected. The trial court ruled that the parties had enter a contract under CISG, because the price of the engines could be judicially determined. The court of appeals reversed. Pratt appealed to the Hungarian Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.
