Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

June is only halfway over, but it has already given us a pair of noteworthy cases on implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code. I wrote a six-part series on implied warranties not long ago. If you’re not familiar with implied warranties, I suggest that you skim parts 1 and 4 of that series to better understand this post.

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: Recent Developments in Implied Warranties

Contact: Att. Alper Uzun; Erdem & Erdem (Turkey)


According to Turkish enforcement legislation, the legal remedies for execution proceedings and the rights granted to the creditor, depend on the legal power of the documents possessed on which the proceeding is based. There are different types of proceedings for each legal circumstance. In each type of procedure, the period for payment and objection and also the consequences of objection are different.

Read more: Special Enforcement Proceedings in Turkish Legislation: Enforcement by Foreclosure of Collateral...

Contact: Stephen James; Clarkslegal LLP (Reading, England)

The rule of thumb in English litigation is that the loser pays the winner’s costs. There are three occasions where the Court might depart from this presumption:

  • Where the successful party has failed to beat an offer made by the losing party earlier in the proceedings
  • The legal costs of the parties are entirely disproportionate to the sums in dispute
  • Where the conduct of the successful party is such that they should be disqualified from receiving their legal costs

The recent case of Saigol –v- Thorney brought into play all of these factors.

Read more: When is an Offer not an Offer?

Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

Not long ago, we discussed your rights when dealing with a buyer whom you think is or may soon become insolvent. We also discussed your potential exposure to your buyer if you breach one of your warranties. Now, the Oregon Supreme Court has given us a great platform to discuss what happens when a buyer simply decides that breaching the contract is a better idea than performing.

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: Protecting Against the "Efficient Breach"

Contact: Ryan Hardy; Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP (Missouri, USA)

In a happy coincidence of timing, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an entertaining opinion addressing the Carmack Amendment, which is a federal law limiting the liability of motor carriers[1] for loss or damage of goods during shipment. The opinion will allow us to continue our discussion of mitigating shipping risks, introduced in the last installment of this column.

Read more: Manufacturer's Corner: Can You Prove the Contents of Your Shipment?