The Finnish Fur Sales v Shulof

770 F. Supp. 139; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9479; 16 U.C.C. Rep.
Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 168

Finish For Sale is a limited company organized under Finnish law, which
sells fur pelts raised by Finnish breeders at public auctions held several
times each year. The auctions are conducted under certain Conditions
of Sale which are listed in the auction catalogue, a copy of which is
given to each prospective bidder in advance of the auction. A one-page
English translation of the Conditions appears on the inside front cover
of the catalogue.
Between December 1987 and December 1988, JSF gave FFS resale
instructions regarding a number of the uncleared skins. FFS asserts
that it was unable to sell the skins at the minimum resale prices set by
JSF. Thereafter, FFS decided to liquidate JSF's account, to which JSF
agreed in March 1989. FFS sold the remaining uncleared skins at its
May

and

September

1989

auctions.

FFS

alleges

damages

of

$153,502.39.
Because none of the defendants have contested FFS's calculations of
damages except for its alleged failure to mitigate, FFS's motion for
summary judgment is granted both as to liability and to damages.
According to the court, the resale by FFS of the furs bid upon but not
cleared by JSF was a commercially legal matter to the law. The FSA
motion for summary judgment was granted both as to liability and to
damages. Plaintiff FFS Assets claim of failure for pay of 2496 pelts
against defendant JFS and Shulof. The motion of the defendant George
and Juliette Shulof for summary judgment was denied. The plaintiffs
motion of summary judgment against all defendant is granted but the
plaintiffs motion for costs were denied.

GMAC Vs Raju
241 F. Supp. 2d 589; 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 979; 65 U.S.P.Q.2D
(BNA) 1780

GMAC

requests

statutory

damages

as

to

Count

(Copyright

Infringement). Pursuant the copyright owner may elect statutory

damages instead of actual damages any time prior to final judgment,
in a sum not less than $750.00 and no more than $30,000.00
perinfringement, as the court considers just. Where infringement is
willful, the court can increase statutory damages to as much as
$150,000.00 per infringed work. GMAC seeks the maximum statutory
damages for each of the copyrighted test forms whose contents were
copied by Raju, twenty-two(22) in all.
Finally, GMAC is entitled to injunctive relief under 17 U.S.C. 502,
prohibiting Raju, his agents, servants, employees, attorneys, assigns
and all persons in concert or participation with him, from infringing in
any manner GMAC's existing or future copyrights and from copying,
duplicating, distributing, displaying, selling, adapting, publishing,
reproducing, preparing derivative works based on, renting, leasing,
offering or otherwise transferring or communicating in any manner,
orally or in written, printed, photographic, or any other form, any test
questions

that

are

identical

or

substantially

similar

to

actual,

copyrighted GMAT test questions or any other copyrighted material

obtained from GMAC's tests, test forms, computer-based item pools, or

any other source, or aiding, abetting or licensing any other person to

do the same. GMAC is likewise entitled to an order pursuant to 17
U.S.C. 503(b) calling for the destruction of all testing and related
materials made by Raju in violation of GMAC's copyrights.

The insurance company. MIR CASE. CIF2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

5096

A German company, defendant, sold a mobile magnetic resonance

imaging system to a United States company. The delivery term
provided CIF New York Seaport, the buyer will arrange and pay for
customs clearance as well as transport to Calmut City [the ultimate
destination in the United States]. Preceding the payment term was a
handwritten note stating that acceptance subject to inspection
followed by the initials of a representative of the buyer. The seller and
buyer agreed that the equipment was in good working order when
loaded at the port of shipment but was damaged when it arrived at its
ultimate

destination.

Two

United

States

insurance

companies

reimbursed the buyer and brought suit against the defendant as

subrogees to the buyers claim.
The court granted the defendants motion to dismiss the suit for failure
to state a cause of action. The parties contract designated German
law as the applicable law. The court applied the CISG as the relevant
German law. The parties had their places of business in two different
Contracting States and had not agreed to exclude application of the
CISG. The court noted that on similar facts German courts apply the
Convention as applicable German law.

The court concluded that the risk of loss passed to the buyer upon
delivery to the port of shipment by virtue of the CIF delivery term. The
court found that the International Chamber of Commerces 1990 CIF
incoterm governed by virtue of article 9(2) CISG. The court also noted
that German courts apply the incoterm as a commercial practice with
the force of law.
The court also rejected arguments based on the typed and
handwritten terms of the contract. A clause allocating the responsibility
for customs clearance deals with a matter not addressed by the CIF
incoterm. A clause providing for a final payment after the equipment
arrives at its destination is not inconsistent with the passing of the risk
of loss. Moreover, a reasonable recipient would understand the
handwritten term to mean that receipt of the equipment was not to be
construed as an admission that the equipment was free of defects and
performed according to contract specifications.