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

190 F. Supp. 116 (1960)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. (plaintiff) sued B.N.S. International Sales Corp. (defendant) over a disagreement on what constituted ‘chicken’ under their purchase contract. The plaintiff argued for a narrow definition limited to young chickens, while the defendant believed it included all types of chicken.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York decided that ‘chicken’ encompassed both broilers and fowl according to trade usage and other evidences such as Department of Agriculture’s definitions. Consequently, the court dismissed Frigaliment’s claims.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Frigaliment Importing Co. (plaintiff), a Swiss corporation, negotiated with B.N.S. International Sales Corp. (defendant), an American company, to purchase chicken at a specified price per pound. The discussions were conducted in German, but the plaintiff used the English term ‘chicken’ to indicate a desire for young chickens suitable for broiling and frying, rather than older stewing chickens, also known as ‘fowl’.

The defendant, new to the poultry trade, interpreted ‘chicken’ to include all types of chicken, including fowl. After receiving shipments that contained primarily fowl, Frigaliment objected and eventually sued B.N.S. for breach of warranty, arguing that the delivered chickens did not meet the contractual description.

The contracts stated that the chicken was to be ‘Grade A, Government Inspected,’ which led to a dispute over whether this referred to young chickens only or included older fowl as well. The market rate for fowl was lower than for broilers at the time of the agreement, which added complexity to the case given the price that was negotiated.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Frigaliment Importing Co. filed a lawsuit against B.N.S. International Sales Corp. for breach of warranty.
  2. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

I.R.A.C. Format

Issue

Issue Icon

Whether ‘chicken’ in the contract referred exclusively to young chickens suitable for broiling and frying (broilers), as argued by the plaintiff, or included all types of chicken, such as stewing chickens (fowl), as interpreted by the defendant.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

The court applied the rule of law that a contract is interpreted based on the agreement of two sets of external signs, not necessarily on the parties’ having meant the same thing but on their having said the same thing.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The court examined various pieces of evidence including dictionary definitions, testimony from experts in the poultry trade, and regulations from the Department of Agriculture to determine the meaning of ‘chicken’ in the context of the contract. Despite some evidence suggesting a distinction between ‘chicken’ and ‘fowl’ in certain contexts, other evidence supported a broader interpretation that included both broilers and fowl under the term ‘chicken’.

The court also considered market prices and previous communications between the parties. Ultimately, Judge Friendly concluded that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proving that ‘chicken’ was used in the narrower sense within the contract.

Conclusion

Conclusion Icon

The court concluded that ‘chicken’ in the contract did not exclusively refer to young chickens suitable for broiling and frying, and thus judgment was entered dismissing the complaint with costs.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The meaning of terms in a contract can be subject to varying interpretations and may depend on industry standards or specific usage within a trade.
  2. The burden of proof lies on the party challenging the agreed terms to demonstrate that their interpretation aligns with common understanding or contractual intent.
  3. External references included in a contract, such as government regulations, can influence and determine the meaning of contractual terms.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What determines the applicability of trade usage in interpreting contract terms?

Trade usage is applied when contract terms are unclear and there is a recognized, customary practice in the relevant industry. Courts will consider evidence of consistent and general adherence to a particular practice or definition by those engaged in the trade to interpret ambiguous terms.

  • For example: If ‘cotton’ in a fabric contract is disputed, and it is common knowledge among textile traders that ‘cotton’ refers to natural cotton fiber only, this trade usage would guide the interpretation.

How can extrinsic evidence impact the interpretation of ambiguous contractual language?

Extrinsic evidence, such as earlier communications, industry standards, or related contracts, can clarify the intentions of the parties and the meaning of ambiguous terms in a contract when intrinsic evidence (the contract itself) doesn’t provide a clear answer.

  • For example: In an IT service agreement where ‘support’ is ambiguous, if emails between parties show they discussed detailed tech support including software updates, this extrinsic evidence would help interpret the level of service intended.

What is the burden of proof in establishing a specific meaning for contractual terms?

The burden rests with the party claiming a term has a particular meaning contrary to its plain or commonly accepted sense. They must provide convincing evidence that supports their interpretation as being reflective of the agreement’s intent.

  • For example: In leasing equipment labeled as ‘high-quality’, if the lessee expected industrial-grade standards but receives consumer-grade items, they must prove that ‘high-quality’ within the industry typically means industrial-grade.

References

Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Contracts