Compare and Contrast Essay on MAF vs. GFM

Introduction

Contracts, especially between two parties, are supposed to be mutually beneficial. In this case, the Machine agricoles de France (MAF) is at liberty to make claims if the terms of the contract have not been followed. Sales of international goods is an uphill task especially in foreign nations, and this pushes many companies to reach an agreement with established foreign companies to make sales of the products on their behalf. Global farm machinery (GFM) being not so developed in France saw it fit to use as MAF as a partner that would make it easy for them to make sales of their machinery. MAF is one of the largest suppliers of farm machines in France made it easy for GFM to eventually promise them mass productions of the type of machines given the high demand in France particularly.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

As the claimant, MAF has valid reasons to take legal action against GFM because of the many unfulfilled elements agreed on the contract that would take five years. MAF is an established company in France, and they have become reputable because of being able to meet the need of the customers. GFM, on the other hand, failed to deliver on their part what was stipulated in the contract and for that reason affected the business of France largest agricultural machine distributor negatively.

GFM attributes most of this problem to the technological hitches in the facility within the UK. These claims, however, are not enough to make them not deliver 1000 tractors within one year. Further, the electric tractors failed terribly in the farms within a short period of use an indication that they were of poor quality. GFM has its parent company in Canada, and if technical issues arose in United Kingdom facility, they were obliged to seek assistance from Canada to honour the term of the contract they signed with MAF.

Contracts between international parties are placed under the international convention on contracts for the international sale of goods. The purpose of CISG is to ensure that there are a uniform and contemporary fair contracts for the global sales of goods. This case involves two companies from different nations with one supplying the other distributing. The fact that it includes two countries qualifies this case to be under the CISG.

CISG is guided by provisions that ensure there is fairness between members under a particular contract. Being an international convention CISG serves as a neutral platform since MAF and GFM are two companies in different European nations. Under CISG both parties presentations can be heard and judgment made without preference on one party.

Another provision in the CISG is that it deals with the obligations of the parties to the international contract. Many of the claimant issues fall under this category where the other party fails to deliver the goods to be sold as expected.in this provision also the quality seems to be below what is expected.

A choice is also another issue that both parties might agree on whether the case can be heard at the CISG or not. While topics such as the validity of the contract and the sales of good they allow parties to have freedom of choice on what should be heard in the courts. In my view, GFM and MAF will be best suited to have their legal issues be addressed at CISG based on the concerns raised.

Based on the issues raised by the claimant against the defendant it is evident these issues fall under the provisions set aside by CISG. In that regard, the case is best suited to be handled by this international court since significant areas of concerns from the sale contract cannot be sufficiently managed by domestic laws.

Why CISG?

One of the main components of the international sale contract is to ensure uniformity between companies from different who are in agreement ("1980 - United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)", 2018). An expansion, as we all know, is the dream of every company to reach more markets and achieve more sales. In the case of GFM France was a good destination where there was a high market for agricultural machinery. Being a Canadian company that expanded into the U.K GFM penetrating the French market was quite hard given the cost required in marketing and also building a name among the French people. Getting into a contract with MAF a company which the French people prefer over other foreign company seemed to be a great opportunity. The difference in location of both companies qualifies the case to be heard on the ground that one of two countries is a signatory of the United Nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods (CISG). GFM was to supply foreign goods in the form of tractors to MAF which was then to distribute it to the French small-scale farmers. The French distributor's role was to distribute tractors supplied by the GFM.in 2014 this did not happen as stipulated in the contract where they promised to provide over 1000 units of Model T 100 tractors.

According to the provisions of the convention, both parties that enter into the contract must ensure that they meet their obligations as agreed in the contract ("1980 - United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG)", 2018). This includes in case GFM supplying the tractor machinery to MAF on time. MAF, on the other hand, distribute this agricultural technology as agreed. Based on the unfortunate events that emerged in England regarding the technicalities experienced in the company they were unable to supply the required minimum of 1000 units of tractors. This failure means that the company as unable to fulfill their obligation as agreed in the contract. The purpose of CISG is to ensure one party meet its commitment so that the sale of goods is made without any hitches. In this case, one party GFM did not deliver the expected amount of goods thus this case fits to be heard in this international court.

According to CISG the seller in this case GFM shall deliver the tractors as agreed in the contract. This includes timely delivery of the goods to France for the buyer to make the distribution. If they fail, they must compensate the buyer unless proving beyond doubt that they the challenges are beyond their control. In this case, GFM did not notify fully notify of the difficulties that affected their operations and due to that breached the contract terms thus qualifying this case to go before CISG as it violated one of its provision about international agreements(Gotanda, 2015).

Ensuring that the quality of the goods is maintained is also another duty of the party supplying the products. Based on the claims made the goods provided in the form electronic tractors were of low quality and could pose a danger to the clients. This means GFM despite supplying fewer tractors manufactured extremely low-quality goods an indication of their failure to honor their duty to do what is expected. The MAF suffered a loss because of low sales of goods as well as the clients did not get a value of the money for the purchased new electronic tractors. To get compensated for this loss the case will get an adequate hearing since CISG has a Principle with regards to compensation.

CISG as an international court is also suitable since it according to one of its article with regards to profit is that it define profit loss as a breach of contract that prevents a company from realizing an increase in its assets(Gotanda, 2015). By breaching the terms of the contract GFM made MAF lose a potential sale of over 500 tractors which amounts to preventing an increase in its assets. Based on this loss CISG is a court that would ensure that justice is served to the French company.

Conclusion

Aside from the loss of sales the French company faced other damages as a result of not getting enough goods to supply their clients. Further, the electric tractors posed a danger to the small-scale farmers as most of them could break down due to slight changes in the weather. Many clients are prone to ask for a refund, and some might even sue the company for supplying with extremely low-quality machines. Based on this it evident that legal aspects of this case qualifies it to be heard in an international court as domestic courts might not address these issues.

References

Gotanda, J. Y. (2015). Dodging Windfalls: Damages Based on Market Price, Actual Loss, and Appropriate Awards.

1980 - United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). (2018). Retrieved from http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/sale_goods/1980CISG.html