Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. in a Chicken Case

Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.

Facts: Frigaliment Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. had breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered. In the first of the two contracts Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. ( smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract vice the first agreement) Both contracts were signed by the parties on May 2nd, 1957. BNS shortly after made 2 shipments to meet the requirements of the first contract , of these two shipments the first was not delivered in full, but the shortage was made up with the later shipment. After receiving the shipment, Frigaliment came to the conclusion that the larger chickens delivered were not young chickens suitable for the purpose of frying or broiling. The older chickens commonly known as fowl were only suitable for stewing purposes. Frigaliment then requested to B.N.S. to stop the second contract shipment of chickens and sued BNS, claiming that under the contract B.N.S. was to only ship young chickens. BNS in turn responded that the obligation was simply to ship chickens that met the description in the contract; this was not exclusive to young chickens per the contract.

Issue: How was the term chicken used in the contract? Was it defined? Does the seeking the definition of the term have the burden of proof in establishing the meaning? What type of evidence can be used to define an ambiguous term?

Holding: No the word chicken alone is questionable. Frigaliment had to prove that its definition of chi...

... middle of paper ...

...right to file a claim against the city of Fresberg. The Commerce Clause specifically prohibits states from passing laws/ordinances based solely on economic interests. The City Counsel of Fresberg passed the ordinance solely with the intent to boost the local granite industry. This is not in keeping with a national economic interest, also The “Dormant” Commerce Clause means that because Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, states cannot pass laws or ordinances that discriminate against interstate commerce. Clearly what the City of Fresberg did with attempting to regulate the granite production for economic gain.

Conclusion: Yes, the granite contractor does have a right to file a claim against the city of Fresberg, the Commerce Clause prohibits such actions on behalf of the local government to regulate commerce based solely on economic interest.