group 10
DESCRIPTION
các Slide môn Law thuộc chương trình tiên tiến K49, NEUTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
GROUP 10
Nguyen Phu Long
Cao Duc Luong
Lam Quang Minh
Quach Hoai Nam
![Page 2: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Fact
Defendant: Wine World,inc.,
A producer and supplier of winesBeriger , NapaRidge …
![Page 3: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PLANTIFF: VARNI BROS.
INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTOR OF WINE WORLD.WAREHOUSES , TRUCKS, TRAINED SALESPEOPLE…
![Page 4: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Varni started distributing for Wine World in 1975
on the basis of a handshake- no written contract.
![Page 5: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
In 1989, Wine World terminated
its arrangement with Varni on 60 days’ written notice.
![Page 6: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Varni sued
They could be terminated only for good cause.
Implied term of their contract, supplied by
industry custom.
![Page 7: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Issue
Can industry custom supply a term of an implied contract?
Answer: YES
![Page 8: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Explanation
Implied contract ? When parties reached an agreement even
though they have not expressly stated its terms.
Industry custom-handshakes-no written contracts.
Everyone “understood’ what a “distributorship” involved.
![Page 9: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Precedent Fact
Jerry Emerson (a black-male worker) sued The Boeing Company.
No.94-3125.(D.C. No. 92-CV-1279).United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.(May 8, 1995),Kansas. Plaintiff said that Boeing breached the parties'
implied employment contract when it fired him.
![Page 10: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Issue Under Kansas law, employment is presumed to
be at will unless an implied contract covering the duration of employment exists.
According to the industry custom, if an implied contract existed. The employee would be able to work until retirement age of 65.
![Page 11: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Issue Plaintiff have to prove that the 2 parties
mutually intended to enter into an implied employment contract.
The employee's subjective expectation of continued employment is not enough.
![Page 12: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Argument Plaintiff conceded that he did not have a written
contract, but argued that he entered into an implied contract with Boeing.
Boeing denied the existence of such a contract.
![Page 13: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Argument On appeal, plaintiff asserted that the parties'
mutual intent to be bound by an implied contract restricting Boeing's right to terminate employment at will.
These facts were insufficient to prove the existence of an implied contract.
![Page 14: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Argument Plaintiff also argued that the Boeing’s
regulations indicated that he would not be fired except for a violation of company rules.
However, they still did not support the plaintiff.
![Page 15: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Verdict Plaintiff has failed to show specific facts from
which an implied contract can be inferred.
Summary judgment in favor of Boeing was appropriate on this breach of contract claim.
![Page 16: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Return to the case of Varni If Varni can prove that an implied contract
exists, or if they don’t make an agreement that rejecting CISG. Varni will win the court.
However, if not, they would lose.
![Page 17: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Implication in Viet Nam
Plaintiff: the Coca-cola Viet Nam Co, Ltd.Address: LinhTrung– ThuDuc– HCM city.
.
Defendant: Mr Le Xuan Duong – Distributor.Address : 28 Hang Chieu-HoanKiem-HaNoi.
No: 03/KTST Date: 11/01/2005 of the Ha Noi’s people commercial court.
![Page 18: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Fact
On 26/10/2004.Coca-cola Viet Nam sued Mr.Duong because he broke the contract, stoped buying the products and didn’t pay the debt of 134.740.000 VND for the company.
Mr Duong also confirmed this debt.
![Page 19: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Fact Coca-cola said that they had made an implied
contract with Mr Duong.(Contract was fine until 30/12/2003)
This contract implied that Mr Duong could buy the products without paying in advance.
![Page 20: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Fact
In this case, the distributor faced difficulties in business so he delayed the paying time.
The company agreed to decrease the debt to 84.180.000 vnd
![Page 21: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Issue Based on the industry custom, the distributor
have to pay back the debt to the company after they make the transaction without any exception.
![Page 22: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Verdict
Base on Viet Nam commercial law on 1997
MỤC 2:NHỮNG NGUYÊN TẮC CƠ BẢN TRONG HOẠT ĐỘNG THƯƠNG MẠI
Điều 13. Nguyên tắc áp dụng tập quán trong hoạt động thương mại.
Trường hợp pháp luật không có quy định, các bên không có thoả thuận và không có thói quen đã được thiết lập giữa các bên thì áp dụng tập quán thương mại nhưng không được trái với những nguyên tắc quy định trong Luật này và trong Bộ luật dân sự.
![Page 23: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Verdict
The court decided that:
- Accepted the lawsuit on 26/10/2004 of the Coca-cola Viet Nam Co, Ltd.
- Mr Le Xuan Duong had to pay the debt 84.180.000 vnd for the Coca-cola Viet Nam Co, Ltd.
- Defendant had to pay all the fee.
![Page 24: Group 10](https://reader036.vdocuments.mx/reader036/viewer/2022070302/548142c1b4af9f8f128b490b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)