Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

United States 19 July 2001 Federal District Court [Illinois] (Zapata Hermanos v. Hearthside Baking)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/010719u1.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case text

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20010719 (19 July 2001)

JURISDICTION: United States [federal court]

TRIBUNAL: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division [federal court of 1st instance]

JUDGE(S): Milton I. Shadur

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 99 C 4040

CASE NAME: Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., d/b/a Maurice Lenell Cooky Company

CASE HISTORY: We publish nine parts of the record of these proceedings:
-      8 December 2000, Ruling on pre-trial motions
-      18 July 2001, Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Court's ruling on buyer's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial]
-      19 July 2001, Supplement to Memorandum opinion and judgment order [Supplement to Court's opinion dated 18 July 2001] [Text presented below]
-      15 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on second motion by buyer attacking the judgment]
-      22 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer's litigation counsel]
-      28 August 2001, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on seller's motion for an award of attorney's fees: ruling on seller's motion advanced against buyer]
-      12 February 2002, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling related to amount of attorney's fees]
-      13 March 2002, Memorandum opinion and order [Ruling on amount of attorney's fees]

The most recent proceeding in this case is an appellate ruling by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down on 19 November 2002. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the District Court's ruling on attorneys' fees. A petition for certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court and denied.

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Mexico (plaintiff)

BUYER'S COUNTRY: United States (defendant)

GOODS INVOLVED: Cookie tins


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes [In the final pre-trial order, the parties agreed that the CISG governed]

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: No evaluation of CISG provisions at this phase of the proceedings

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents


Citations to case abstracts, texts, and commentaries

CITATIONS TO ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

(a) UNCITRAL abstract: Unavailable

(b) Other abstracts

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (English): Text presented below; see also 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11698 and 2001 WL 830973

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Case text

Zapata Hermanos Sucesores, S.A. v. Hearthside Baking Co., Inc., etc.

No. 99 C 4040

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Decided: 19 July 2001

SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ORDER [1]

This morning (the day after the completion and issuance of this Court's July 18 memorandum opinion and judgment order (the "Opinion")), this Court's minute clerk was apprised by [seller's] lead counsel (whom she had called to pick up a copy of the Opinion) that (1) on the evening of July 17 another of [seller's] attorneys had spoken with [buyer's] accountant who was reviewing the revised [seller] spreadsheet covering the interest calculation later approved in the Opinion and (2) [buyer's] accountant had at that time expressed the view that the calculation "looked fine" and said that he had so told one of [buyer's] attorneys. That appears to impact doubly on the Opinion:

1. In the text at n. 9, the statement as to the interest figure that was approved by this Court really becomes a more affirmative one: There appears to be no dispute as to the amount that is awardable to [seller] as interest if this Court's substantive analysis of the issue prevails.

2. It is distressing (and frankly somewhat astonishing) that with the accountant thus having reached a positive conclusion as to the [seller's] calculation, [buyer's] counsel had failed to communicate that fact to this Court's staff. As the Appendix to the Opinion said, that had been the subject of a number of requests directed to [buyer's] counsel without success, despite the fact that the requests had made it obvious that a very prompt response was needed. And it should be equally obvious from the nature and placement of the Appendix that this Court had held up on that aspect of the Opinion until the last possible moment, in the hope that the mootness of any issue as to the numbers might obviate any need for that discussion. It would have been the simplest of changes for this Court to have eliminated n. 9 and the Appendix in favor of a straight-out affirmative confirmation of the correctness of the interest figure involved.


FOOTNOTE

1. This supplement employs the same defined terms as the original opinion.

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated December 15, 2003
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography