MCC-Marble Ceramic Center v. Ceramica Nuova D’Agostino pg 385
Facts:
• Plaintiff retailer sought review of a judgment entered in the
court below that granted summary judgment in favor of
defendant manufacturer. Plaintiff contended that evidence of
the parties' subjective intent at the time of contracting was
improperly excluded because the parol evidence rule was
erroneously applied in derogation of the United Nations
Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods
(CISG) that governed judicial interpretation of the parties'
agreement. The court reversed the lower court's decision and
remanded the cause for further proceedings. The court held
that the CISG did preclude application of the parol evidence
rule. Furthermore, the court held that summary judgment was
precluded because plaintiff had presented evidence that
raised an issue of material fact about whether the parties
subjectively intended to be bound by terms contained on the
reverse side of a preprinted contract used to memorialize the
terms of their agreement
• What is the scope of CISG?
• Applies wherever the location of the business of both
parties to the contracts have ratified the treaty.
• CISG pg 359 of contract law: selected source materials
MCC-PL/Buyer-Located in FL
D’Agostino-DF/Seller-Located in Italy
• PL: Complaint: failure to supply
• DF: Answer: Non shipment justified b/c MCC didn’t pay
• DF: Counterclaim: to collect unpaid money
• PL: CISG allows set off of money owed for non conforming
goods.
• DF: Contract required written notice of dissatisfaction
• PL: we did not intend written terms to apply
DF argument:
• Clear
• Conspicuous
• “ I was just kidding”/ I didn’t mean that-not a defense
MCC argument:
• Intent was neutral
