Discussion:  Case: Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc. 613 F.3d 395 United Stated Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2010  Facts: Forestal Guarani S.A., in Argentina, entered into

Discussion:

Case: Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc. 613 F.3d 395 United Stated Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2010

Facts: Forestal Guarani S.A., in Argentina, entered into an oral agreement to sell wooden finger-joints to Daros International, Inc. in New Jersey.[1] Forestal sent Daros the products but Daros declined to pay the full amount.

When Forestal sued Daros in the U.S. for breach of contract, Daros denied owing anything because, under New Jersey sales law, the contract would have had to be in writing to be enforceable. Further, it claimed, Argentina had not accepted the CISG’s elimination of the writing requirement when it ratified the CISG. Since the contract was not in writing, it was also possible that Argentine law applied. The district court dismissed Forestal’s claim because the parties’ agreement was not in writing. Forestal appealed.

Question/Issue: Which law applied to this contract—the CISG, Argentine law, or New Jersey law?

Chapter 5

2. ETHICS The Supreme Court has stated that “although one may find sexually explicit material tasteless and even immoral, it is constitutionally protected so long as it is not obscene.” This chapter discusses the guidelines that determine if speech is obscene for purposes of the First Amendment. Should obscenity ever be protected under the First Amendment? Where you do draw the line?