Homework answers / question archive / LB458 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW COURSEWORK,  Note: 2000 words must have an introduction middle part and conclusion

LB458 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW COURSEWORK,  Note: 2000 words must have an introduction middle part and conclusion

Law

Share With

---

LB458 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL LAW COURSEWORK, 
Note: 2000 words must have an introduction middle part and conclusion. Everything must be referenced using the OSCOLA method (British/UK references and laws are a must).

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

 

•             Type your candidate number on each page of your answer and follow the submission instructions as directed by The University of Law.

 

•             Your submitted work must be in word.  Your submitted work must have a word count at the end of your answer.

 

•             The total word count for all questions should NOT exceed 2000 words. Any words over this total will not be marked.

 

•             You will be assessed on the extent to which you have met the module outcomes by reference to the Undergraduate Grade Descriptors for Level 6:

o             Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of relevant international commercial law principles, and the broader context within which the law operates.

o             Critically analyse complex actual or hypothetical problems and evaluate a range of solutions in the light of the legal issues raised and make critical judgments on the merits of particular arguments.

o             Undertake directed and self-directed research to retrieve and evaluate accurate, current, and relevant information from a range of sources.

o             Utilise and evaluate data presented in numerical form and derive appropriate conclusions.

o             Devise and sustain a legal argument, recognising ambiguity and synthesis, using tailored evidence in writing and be able to community these to specialist and non-specialist audiences.

o             Communicate clearly and concisely, using correct grammar and spelling, and using appropriate technical legal language where necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTIONS

 

PART 1

 

You are Aubrey Trainee, a trainee at NewLaw LLP. Gourmet Robot Ltd is a longstanding client of the firm. They specialise in artificial intelligence and the culinary world. Their most famous product is a robot which can scan cupboards, fridges and freezers to assess the contents and then subsequently design and cook a meal using the contents. Whilst Gourmet Robot Ltd is well known in the UK, they have never sold their products internationally. Gourmet Robot Ltd are interested in understanding the risks of selling their products internationally.

 

Please read the attached email (Document A) from your supervising solicitor, Sam Supervisor, and then create speaker notes for a presentation as instructed in this email.

 

DOCUMENT A

(for use in Part 1)

 

To: A.Trainee@NewLaw.com

From: Sam.Supervisor@NewLaw.com 

Subject: Gourmet Robot Ltd – The Risks of International Trade

Date: [1 Jan 2023]

 

Dear Aubrey,

 

I met with one of the directors of Gourmet Robot Ltd (“GR”) this morning about their goal to pursue international trade. The directors of GR want to understand the risks of pursuing an export strategy, as they have no prior experience of trading internationally. I have set out the details below and I would like your help in preparing a presentation.

 

GR is a longstanding client of the firm. They specialise in artificial intelligence and the culinary world. Their most famous product is a robot which can scan cupboards, fridges, and freezers to assess the contents and then subsequently design and cook a meal using the contents. When the product was first designed, it was largely restaurants that purchased the robot, owing to the high product price. However, the technology used in the robot has become much cheaper over the last year. This has meant that several supermarkets and department stores have entered into sales agreements to sell the robot. GR only sell to businesses and do not sell directly to consumers.

 

At the moment, GR is the only company in the world that produces the robot. GR want to take advantage of the lack of competition and begin exporting the robot internationally. Their plan is to begin exporting to the European Union (“EU”) initially and expand from there. However, they have heard from friends in the industry, that exporting is not always straightforward. They are concerned about credit risk, marine risks, and exposure to foreign laws.

 

Please can you prepare speaker notes for me, addressing GR’s concerns and providing suggestions as to how we can mitigate these risks. I will have a maximum of 10 minutes to conduct the presentation, so please make sure you keep the points brief but directly linked to GR.

 

Many thanks

Sam

 

Sam Supervisor

Associate Solicitor

NewLaw LLP

 

Sam.Supervisor@NewLaw.com

 

 

PART 2

 

You are continuing your training at NewLaw LLP and, together with Sam Supervisor, you have been working with GR for a few months. GR decided that the benefits of pursuing an exporting strategy outweighed the risks. They have entered a number of sales contracts, and everything has been going well. However, they have had one complaint from a purchaser called Aqua Tonic Ltd (“AT”). Sam Supervisor met with one of the directors from GR to discuss the complaint.

 

Please read the attached attendance note (Document B) from Sam Supervisor, following the meeting with GR earlier today and then draft a memorandum for Sam Supervisor as instructed.

 

Your memorandum must include an explanation of what provisions of the United Nationals Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (often referred to as the CISG or Vienna Convention) may have been breached by GR. You must also evaluate the potential remedies that a court might order. Please also advise on what course of action GR would need to take if AT attempt to use litigation, rather than arbitration?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOCUMENT B

MEETING NOTE

 

Fee earner: Sam Supervisor

Client: Gourmet Robot Ltd

Matter: Aquatonic Ltd - complaint

File No: SS/GR/001

Date: [___ Jan 2023]

 

David Mayor, a director of GR, explained that Aqua Tonic Ltd (“AT”) recently purchased 3 of the culinary robots from GR. AT is a company based in France. The sales contract for the robots was, entered into in October 2022. The robots were delivered in December 2022.

 

The key provisions of the contract provided that:

 

•             Clause 2: The robots will be painted in navy blue to match Aqua Tonic’s logo.

•             Clause 6: The robots will be delivered to Aqua Tonic’s premises by 1st December 2022.

•             Clause 7: The Vienna Convention (the CISG) will apply to any dispute arising out of the contract.

•             Clause 8: All disputes arising from the contract will be referred to arbitration.

 

AT have two primary allegations:

 

•             The paint used to paint the robots is too dark and resembles black, rather than navy blue.

•             The robots were delivered on the 2nd December 2022 and late delivery means they can reject the goods.

 

AT have informed David that they will issue a claim form to the English High Court if GR does not agree to refund AT in full and pay the shipping costs to return the robots.

 

David explained to me that he feels that both claims are unreasonable. GR reached out to AT before painting the robots to ask for the Pantone code of their logo. This code would have meant that the robots could exactly match the logo. AT responded by stating they didn’t know the code, and that navy blue was “an obvious shade.” GR therefore selected the default navy blue on their painting machine’s setting. GR would be happy to repaint the robots, if AT provided the pantone code. However, they would expect AT to pay for this service.

 

Further, the robots were placed on the vessel on the 27th November 2022. The vessel was due to set sail on the 29th November and arrive in France on 30th November, in time to be delivered to AT by the 1st December. However, the vessel was declared unseaworthy. This resulted in a one day delay. GR found a new carrier and placed the robots on the next available vessel. Whilst GR accept that the goods were one day late, they feel that this was outside of their control.

 

Meeting Time – 25 minutes 

 

[Note by Sam Supervisor – I will ask Aubrey Trainee to prepare a memorandum detailing which provisions of the CISG will likely apply and the potential remedies the court might order. I would also like to be reminded of the steps we need to take if AT ignore the arbitration clause and pursue litigation in the English High Court. Please include in footnotes relevant primary and secondary sources in support of the points of law and principles made].

 

Part 3

 

Gourmet Robot Ltd (“GR”) have recently invested £1,000,000 in research and development costs to advance their artificial intelligence. This had resulted in a new robot which can administer first aid. GR believe that they will be able to sell this to restaurants, alongside their culinary robot, to further reduce the need for physical people in the kitchen.

 

GR would like to apply for intellectual property rights over the design, as they want to ensure a competitor cannot swoop in and take advantage of the new artificial intelligence.

 

Sam Supervisor has asked that you draft a brief email to GR detailing the following:

 

(1) what type of intellectual property they will need to apply for and why

(2) what the application process involves, and

(3) what level of protection they will receive if they apply within the UK.

 

(100 marks)