1. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador (PetroEcuador) contracted with BP Oil International, Ltd. for the pur- chase of 140,000 barrels of gasoline to be delivered CFR from Texas to Ecuador. The contract separately pro- vided that the terms were governed by Ecuadorian law. The contract also required that the gasoline have a gum content of less than three milligrams per one hundred milliliters to be determined at the port of departure in Texas. The gasoline was tested for gum content upon departure and was deemed satisfactory. However, the gum content exceeded the contractual limit upon retest- ing in Ecuador, and PetroEcuador refused to accept delivery. BP resold the gasoline at a loss of $2 million and sued PetroEcuador for breach of contract. BP claimed that the Convention on Contracts for the Inter- national Sale of Goods was applicable to the transac- tion. As such, BP contended that the risk of loss passed to PetroEcuador upon the loading of the goods in Texas. However, PetroEcuador claimed that local law required the delivery of conforming goods to the agreed desti- nation despite the ratification of the CISG by Ecuador. Which party is correct? When did the risk of loss pass in this case? BP Oil International, Ltd. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador, 332 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2003).
2. In 2011, Mago International, a New York company, entered into a contract to sell meat products to NTP Genita, a company based in Kosovo. Mago required Genita to obtain a standby letter of credit issued by Bank for Business, a Kosovar bank, and confirmed by LHB AG. Under the terms of the letter, if Genita failed to pay Mago within 45 days after the date of an invoice, Mago could present documents to LHB and obtain payment on the letter. One of the required documents was a photocopy of [a bill of lading] evidencing shipment of the goods. Mago shipped 12 containers of products to Genita under invoices, none of which was paid by Genita. Mago ten- dered documents to LHB on three separate occasions, each of which was rejected by LHB due to the absence of signed bills of lading. LHB rejected a fourth tender of documents that contained signed bills of lading for each of the invoices as untimely. Mago sued LHB and Bank for Business for wrongful dishonor of the letter of credit. Mago claimed that the unsigned bills of lading complied with the terms of the letter of credit as they reflected the name of the ship and purported dates of shipment. The district court concluded that the unsigned copies were insufficient evidence of shipment and that Mago failed to comply with the terms of the letter of credit. Mago appealed the decision. Did the unsigned copies of the bills of lading comply with the letter of credits requirement that Mago provide a photocopy of [a bill of lading] evi- dencing shipment of the goods.? Why or why not? Mago International v. LHB AG, 833 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2016).
Specific instructions:
The full text of the cases above are the attached pdf files.
Pay close attention to the call of the questions above. In other words, what is the question asking from you to answer after it explains some of the facts of the case?
When you have good understanding of the call of the question, find the answer in the cases themselves (pdf files).
Do not make conclusive statements. This is not a multiple choice or True/False. You must explain your answer to the questions by consulting the cases in the pdf files to find the appropriate law.
Cite appropriate pages of the cases in the pdf files to support your answer. Citation example: (BP Oil International, Ltd. v. Empresa Estatal Petroleos de Ecuador, p1)
Your answer to each question should be approximately 300 words (600 words total).
