Download international law presentation

L201919190161
ILKHOMOVA ODINABONU
1. HEADING
 US District Court (N.D.Cal. Trial court)
Asante Technologies, Inc.v.PMCSierra,Inc 164F.Supp.2d 1142(2001)
2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Asante placed an order through Unique Technologies,
located in California, and claimed that the goods did
not meet its specification and filled suit in Califoria
state court to have its claim decided under California
law.
A. The defendant’s confirmation states that the contract
should be explained by the laws of Canada.
B. The plaintiff’s choice of applicable law adopts
California law.
3. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
 Asante filed suit in California state court to have its
claim decided under California law . The Defendant
removed the action to the ditrict court and now Asante
requests that the case be remanded back to Superior
Court of the county of Santa Clara
4. LEGAL ISSUE
Which place had the closest relationship to this
contract ( The plaintiff contends the United States
did)?
2. Wheather the CISG is applicable to this case (
Plaintiff’s choice of applicable law generally adopts
the “law of” the state of California)?
3. Should this case be remanded back to state court
(wheather the federal court had jurisdiction over this
case)?
1.
5.ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Asante (plaintiff)
PMC (defendant)
 Plaintiff argues that the
 The defendant’s two places of
parties can “opt out” of the
CISG by using a choice of the
law clause
business: Canada and the
Oregan branch
 Canada is the place of
business which has the
closest relationship to the
contract
6.RULE OF LAW
7.HOLDING OF THE COURT
 Yes , federal jurisdiction over claims governed by the
CGIS exists, since the CGIS is an international
convention ratifield by the US
8.REASONING OF THE COURT
 CISG applies to contracts between parties whose place
of business are in different states
In this case:
Plaintiff’s place of business: California,USA
Defendant’s place of business: Canada
Article 10 of CISG:if a party has more than one place of
business,the place of business is that which has the
closest relationship to the contract.
9. ADDITIONAL COMMENT
 The federal court had concurrent jurisdiction over this
case because the applicable law was the CISG, an
international convention ratified by the United States.