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

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

United States 28 March 2003 Federal District Court [Pennsylvania] (ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/030328u1.html]

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

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20030328 (28 March 2003)

JURISDICTION: United States [federal court]

TRIBUNAL: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania [federal court of 1st instance]

JUDGE(S): Robreno, J.

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: CIV. A. 99-577

CASE NAME: ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. v. Checkpoint Systems, Inc.

CASE HISTORY: Unavailable

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Unavailable

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Canada (plaintiff)

GOODS INVOLVED: Tags used in manufacture of anti-shoplifting devices (electronic article surveillance systems)


Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: The court ruled that there was no outcome determinative conflict between the UCC and the "International Sale of Goods Act", whichever law applied

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Unavailable

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

Unavailable

Descriptors: Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents


Editorial remarks

EDITOR: Albert H. Kritzer

The key issues are antitrust and alleged tortious interference with contractual relations on the part of Defendant Checkpoint Systems of the United States. Plaintiff ID Security Systems, Canada had entered into a contract for the purchase of goods with Tokai Electronics, Ltd. For there to have been tortuous interference by Checkpoint Systems, this contract would have had to have been in effect. Was this contract in effect at the time of the alleged tortuous interference? Plaintiff ID Security Systems so contended. Defendant Checkpoint Systems (one-third owner of Tokai) contended that the contract between Checkpoint Systems and Tokai was not in effect at that time. Issues that can bear on the CISG are:

-   What is the governing law of the contract? Pennsylvania's UCC or the CISG? [The court's reference is not to the CISG, but to the International Sale of Goods Act ("IASG"). By this reference, the court presumably intends to refer to the CISG.]
- If the UCC governs the contract, had material breach and repudiation terminated the contract? If the CISG governs the contract, had the contract been avoided?

The sole reference to the CISG ["IASG"] and the above subject in the court's opinion is in footnote 24:

"The parties agree that Pennsylvania law supplies the elements of tortuous interference with contractual relations. However, they disagree over whether the U.C.C., or the International Sale of Goods Act ("IASG") constitutes the applicable law under which the jury was to decide whether a contract was still in existence between ID Security and Tokai at the time that Tokai contracted with Checkpoint, or whether material breach and repudiation had terminated the ID-Tokai agreement. The issue of a possible conflict between these two laws was raised and discussed during the charge conference, at which all parties and the court concluded that there were no material differences between these laws, that the court's proposed instructions were accurate under both statutory compilations, and that there was no conflict. See T.T. 5/20/02 (doc. No. 200) at 50-58. Although ID Security now strenuously argues the applicability of IASG, the court concludes, after a comparison of the two statutory sources, that there is no outcome determinative conflict between them, and that, even under the UCC, the code that Checkpoint favors, Checkpoint is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on ID Security's tortuous interference claim."

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): 249 F.Supp.2d 622; 2003-1 Trade Cases P 73,004 (E.D. Pa.)

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated May 30, 2003
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography