Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York - 190 F. Supp. 116
tl;dr:
Two companies contracted for the sale of chicken. But Defendant supplied Plaintiff with fowl (stewing chicken) rather than the broiler and fryer chickens Plaintiffs wanted. The court was called upon to answer the question: What is "chicken"?Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1960 case of Frigaliment Importing v. B.N.S., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York heard a breach of contract dispute between a Swiss company and a New York company over the sale of frozen chicken. The Swiss company argued that the contract specified young, broil- and fry-ready chicken, while the New York company believed it encompassed any chicken meeting the contract's weight and quality requirements. The New York company had delivered older, tougher birds labeled as "stewing chicken" or "fowl."
The court ruled in favor of the New York company, concluding that the Swiss company had not proven that the term "chicken" held a specific, narrow meaning within their trade or contractual context. The court used various interpretation methods to clarify the term's ambiguity, including contract language analysis, review of preliminary negotiations, trade usage, legal standards, performance course, and construction maxims. None of these factors supported the Swiss company's claim that "chicken" referred solely to young birds.
This case is significant as it demonstrates how courts handle ambiguous contract terms and strive to determine the parties' intentions. It also shows how courts weigh various evidence sources and interpretation principles to reach fair outcomes, emphasizing the need for clear communication when drafting contracts to avoid disputes.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The legal case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the term "chicken" in a contract for the sale of chicken between a New York sales corporation and a Swiss corporation. The court rules in favor of the defendant for breach of warranty, as the plaintiff has not proven that the contract used "chicken" in the narrower sense. The court examines the exchange of cablegrams between the parties before the formal contracts were executed and finds that the defendant's interpretation of "chicken" as any kind of chicken is more persuasive. The case highlights the importance of external signs in contract formation, rather than the parties' subjective intentions. The plaintiff's argument that the contract forms containing the words "through the intermediary of" negate agency is rejected. The defendant disputes the plaintiff's argument that there was a trade usage that the term "chicken" meant "young chicken," and must prove either actual knowledge of the alleged usage or that the usage is so generally known in the community that the defendant's actual individual knowledge of it may be inferred.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.