Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Swift Canadian Co., Limited v. Albert Banet, Sali Banet and Abraham L. Perlman (Also Known as Abe Perlman), Individually and Trading as Keystone Wool Pullers Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit1955Docket #648572
224 F.2d 36 Contracts Commercial Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

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

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: A Canadian seller sued a U.S. buyer who refused goods after a U.S. import ban. The court held the buyer liable, finding that under the “F.O.B. Toronto” term, risk of loss passed to the buyer in Canada before the import ban became relevant.

Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under an “F.O.B. place of shipment” contract, risk of loss passes to the buyer upon the seller’s tender of delivery. A subsequent government action frustrating the buyer’s ultimate purpose, such as importation, does not excuse the buyer’s performance.

Swift Canadian Co., Limited v. Albert Banet, Sali Banet and Abraham L. Perlman (Also Known as Abe Perlman), Individually and Trading as Keystone Wool Pullers 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

Swift Canadian Co. (“Swift”), a Canadian seller, contracted to sell a quantity of lamb pelts to Keystone Wool Pullers (“Keystone”), a Philadelphia-based buyer. The contract specified the price as “F. O. B. Toronto” and included shipping instructions for rail transport to Philadelphia. A separate clause stated that for sales “F.O.B. seller’s plant title and risk of loss shall pass to buyer when product is loaded on cars at seller’s plant.” After the contract was formed but before shipment of the remaining pelts, the U.S. government issued new regulations that, as stipulated by the parties, prevented Keystone from importing the pelts. Citing these regulations, Keystone refused to accept delivery in Toronto. Swift was ready, willing, and able to deliver the goods to the railroad carrier in Toronto but did not do so due to Keystone’s repudiation. Swift subsequently sold the pelts on the Toronto market at a loss and sued Keystone for breach of contract to recover damages.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Under a sales contract with the term “F.O.B. Toronto,” does a subsequent U.S. government regulation preventing the buyer from importing the goods excuse the buyer’s contractual duty to accept delivery and pay for them?

No. The buyer is not excused from performance. The court reversed 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 do

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Under a sales contract with the term “F.O.B. Toronto,” does a subsequent U.S. government regulation preventing the buyer from importing the goods excuse the buyer’s contractual duty to accept delivery and pay for them?

Conclusion

This case establishes that in an F.O.B. shipment contract, the risk of 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 nos

Legal Rule

Under the Uniform Sales Act, § 19, when a contract requires 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 p

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis centered on the interpretation of the "F.O.B. Toronto" term 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 nu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • In a sales contract, an F.O.B. place of shipment term transfers
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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?