Agree Court\'s Decision? Is Court\'s Interpretation Article

¶ … agree court's decision? Is court's interpretation Article

There are a number of factors to consider when seeking to determine whether or not justice was served in the 2008 court case Sky Cast Inc. v. Global District Distribution. The crux of this case is that the plaintiff, which is based in Canada, was supplying light poles to the defendant, which is based in the United States, for several years prior to a dispute that arose in 2006. During that year Sky Cast Inc. delivered light poles to Global District Distribution's clients in Florida. However, the defendant claims that the poles were not delivered in a timely fashion, and that it incurred damages due to that fact -- which was also the primary reason it severed ties with Sky Cast Inc. despite owing the latter an $80,000 balance.

After considering a number of factors that were relevant to this case and to the nature of the relationship of the two aforementioned parties, it was determined that Sky Cast Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was valid, due to the fact that it supplied the light poles in question in a relatively timely fashion and was never suitably compensated for them. These facts are not in dispute, not even by the defendant, which is why it appears that in this particular aspect of this case, justice was indeed served. However, Sky Cast Inc. also sought to legal action against Global District Distribution due to what it perceived as "negligent misrepresentation" on its part by dissolving its Florida-based company and relocating its headquarters to Kentucky under a slightly different name. In doing so, Global District Distribution avowed to Florida legal officials that the company had no outstanding debts. This case set a precedent in determining that negligent misrepresentation is actually a tort claim which is separate from breach of contract. Litigation for the latter may be pursued through Contracts on International Sale of Goods (CISG), while the former is determined by individual states. In that regards, it seems both logical and within reason that the court would rule out Sky Cast Inc.'s claim of negligent misrepresentation, since it does not apply to international law and was previously decided as not being an issue within Florida court.

Additionally, the court's ruling that under article 39, Global District Distribution could claim that there was fault with the goods it received, and that there was a "lack of conformity" with them, also appears rational and believable. It does not appear that the court's interpretation of Article 39 is too expansive, for the simple fact that the passage of this article that pertains the most to this court case states "the buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice thereof at the latest within a period of two years from the date on which the goods were actually handed over to the buyer.." (No author, 2008). Global District Distribution filed a legal motion regarding its lack of conformity with the goods delivered by Sky Cast Inc. In 2007, approximately a year after the goods were delivered in 2006. Because that motion was filed within two years, it does not appear that the court was too expansive in allowing this motion to be heard.