Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc. Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit2010Docket #619773
613 F.3d 395 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14969 2010 WL 2836985 International Law Contracts Civil Procedure

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

4 min read

tl;dr: An Argentine seller sued a U.S. buyer over an oral contract. Because Argentina requires written contracts under an international treaty and the U.S. does not, the court held that the forum’s choice-of-law rules must determine which country’s law applies to the writing requirement.

Legal Significance: This case establishes that in a contract dispute under the CISG, where one party’s nation has made an Article 96 declaration requiring a writing and the other has not, a court must apply choice-of-law rules to determine which nation’s domestic law governs contract formalities.

Forestal Guarani S.A. v. Daros International, Inc. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Forestal Guarani S.A., an Argentine lumber manufacturer, and Daros International, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, entered into an oral agreement in 1999 for Daros to sell Forestal’s products in the United States. Pursuant to the agreement, Forestal shipped goods valued at over $1.8 million, for which Daros paid approximately $1.4 million. Forestal sued Daros in New Jersey state court for the unpaid balance, and the case was removed to federal court. Both parties agreed their dispute was governed by the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The United States, Daros’s place of business, is a signatory to the CISG and adheres to Article 11, which does not require contracts to be in writing. Argentina, Forestal’s place of business, is also a signatory but has made a declaration under Article 96 of the CISG, opting out of Article 11 and preserving its domestic writing requirement for contracts. The District Court granted summary judgment for Daros, concluding that Argentina’s declaration imposed a writing requirement that the oral agreement failed to satisfy.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: In a contract dispute governed by the CISG between parties from two different signatory states, where one state has made an Article 96 declaration requiring a writing and the other has not, must a court apply the forum’s choice-of-law rules to determine which state’s law governs contract formation?

The grant of summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

In a contract dispute governed by the CISG between parties from two different signatory states, where one state has made an Article 96 declaration requiring a writing and the other has not, must a court apply the forum’s choice-of-law rules to determine which state’s law governs contract formation?

Conclusion

This decision provides a crucial framework for U.S. courts, clarifying that conflicts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer

Legal Rule

When a contract dispute is governed by the CISG and involves a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol

Legal Analysis

The Third Circuit's analysis began by confirming that the CISG governs the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adi

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Issue: How to resolve a CISG contract dispute when one party’s
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial