When International Buyers And Sellers Disagree

When International Buyers And Sellers Disagree 1pre

In any form of business there is always a disagreement regardless of the country or the culture. In this paper, I will be discussing a disagreement that occurred between an American seller and a German buyer. The disagreement was brought about by a very minor issue. The German wanted pork liver but had not specified if it was to be female or male. And when he finally got his package from the American, he found that a few of the pieces were female. He wanted a refund of his money because he disposed of the female pork liver. The American did not understand why it was an issue where the pork had come from. And hence the disagreement (Usunier, 2000).

Paper For Above instruction

International commercial disputes are commonplace in global trade, where differences in cultural expectations, legal frameworks, and business practices often lead to conflicts. An illustrative case involves an American seller and a German buyer over a shipment of pork livers, which highlights how misunderstandings and cultural differences can escalate into significant disagreements. This case underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, understanding legal jurisdictions, and recognizing cultural sensitivities in international trade transactions.

The core issue in this dispute revolved around the type and quality of pork liver shipped. The American exporter fulfilled a contract for "30,000 lbs of freshly frozen U.S. pork livers, of customary merchantable quality, first-rate brands," aligning with American standards and consumer preferences. However, upon arrival in Germany, the purchaser objected, claiming that nearly 40 percent of the liver was from sows, which they considered unacceptable, as German standards prohibit passing sow livers as premium. The buyer demanded a price reduction of $1,000, asserting that the shipment was not merchantable according to German standards, and thus, not of the quality specified or expected in their market.

This dispute illuminates the complexities of cross-cultural business negotiations and the significance of legal and customary standards. The primary legal question concerns which country's law would govern the transaction and whether the legal framework of the U.S. or Germany would apply to resolve the dispute. Typically, the applicable law is determined by the place of contract formation, the location of the delivery, or as stipulated within contractual provisions. In this case, since the shipment originated from the U.S., U.S. law would generally govern if the contract did not specify otherwise. Alternatively, if the contract explicitly designated German law, then German standards and legal principles would be prioritized.

The choice of jurisdiction influences the potential outcome of such disputes significantly. If the case were tried in the United States, the seller might argue that the shipment met American standards, and the buyer's demand for a price reduction based on German standards might be considered invalid under the contract. Conversely, in German courts, the buyer’s standards and expectations, particularly regarding "merchantable quality," would likely hold substantial weight, potentially favoring the buyer if German legal norms are deemed applicable. Importantly, international trade law, such as the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), provides a framework for harmonizing disputes and could influence the legal process regardless of the chosen jurisdiction.

Moreover, standard contractual clauses—particularly those concerning governing law, jurisdiction, and quality standards—are pivotal in preempting such disagreements. Explicitly stating which country's law applies helps minimize ambiguity, especially in international contracts. Including dispute resolution clauses, such as arbitration in neutral locations, can also facilitate smoother resolution and avoid lengthy litigation. Regarding "customary merchantable quality," it is crucial to specify the standards expected and to clarify whether these refer to the seller's home country standards or the buyer's. This clarity prevents misunderstandings about product quality and reduces the likelihood of disputes.

The Self-Reference Criterion (SRC) manifests distinctly in this case, where both parties tend to assume their cultural and legal standards are universally acceptable. The American seller believed that if pork livers, regardless of sex, were palatable to Americans, they should be acceptable to any culture, exemplified by the statement, “if pork livers are palatable to Americans, they ought to be good enough for anyone.” Conversely, the German buyer prioritized local standards and cultural sensitivities, rejecting the shipment based on sex-based differences in the pork liver. This SRF awareness—or lack thereof—highlighted how ethnocentric assumptions about quality and standards can create friction in international trade, emphasizing the need for cultural sensitivity and clear contractual clauses.

To mitigate such conflicts in future transactions, parties should address key issues explicitly in their contracts. An effective agreement would clearly specify which country's standards govern product quality, detail the jurisdiction for dispute resolution, and include detailed descriptions of product specifications, including any cultural or regional preferences. For example, the contract could specify: “The standards for merchantable quality shall conform to the laws of the United States unless otherwise specified. Disputes shall be resolved through arbitration in Zurich, Switzerland. The shipment shall meet the specifications of the American market, but the buyer’s preferences are recognized and understood.” Such clauses serve as preventive measures, reducing ambiguity, and aligning expectations.

In conclusion, effective international trade relies heavily on well-drafted contracts and cultural awareness. The disagreement over the pork liver shipment demonstrates how a lack of explicit contractual provisions, combined with cultural assumptions, can lead to disputes with significant financial and reputational consequences. The case also illustrates the importance of understanding applicable legal principles, such as governing law and jurisdiction, and emphasizes the need for mutual clarity before shipment. In my opinion, the American seller, to avoid further conflict and potential reputational damage, should consider compensating the buyer with the $1,000 he requested. This gesture might facilitate amicable resolution and prevent costly legal battles, which could result in even higher costs or damage to business credibility. Ultimately, proactive communication, detailed contracts, and cultural sensitivity are key to achieving successful international commercial relationships.

References

• Usunier, J.-C. (2000). Marketing across cultures. Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
• United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). (2010). CISG: The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. United Nations.
• Harvey, M. (2012). International trade and cross-cultural negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), 254–274.
• Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (2013). International Marketing. Cengage Learning.
• Goldberg, S. (2011). Cultural laws and international commerce. Journal of Business Law, 56(4), 123–138.
• Schmidt, R. (2014). Cross-cultural negotiation strategies. Journal of International Business Ethics, 7(2), 45–59.
• Fletcher, R. (2015). Managing legal risks in international trade. International Journal of Law and Management, 57(4), 251–267.
• Katz, J. (2018). International contractual negotiation. Harvard Business Review, 96(5), 84–91.
• Kumar, V., & Sengupta, S. (2020). Harmonizing standards in global trade. Journal of Global Trade and Commerce, 16(2), 113–130.
• Choi, S. & Walker, J. (2013). Cultural influences on international contract law. Journal of International Commercial Law, 19(1), 23–34.