A Chinese seller and a US (Texas) buyer concluded a contract for the purpose of introducing within the North-American market weight lifting equipment produced by the seller. Subsequent to a dispute the parties entered into a modified written agreement for payment. When the seller requested payment, the buyer refused to pay alleging that two contemporaneous oral agreements, relating to the seller's obligation to deliver the goods, had been concluded.
At first instance the Court did not allow the buyer to prove the oral agreements on the basis of the 'parole evidence rule'. On appeal the seller argued that Texas law applied while the buyer argued that CISG applied. The court provided: '[we] need not resolve this choice of law issue because our discussion is limited to application of the parole evidence rule (which applies regardless).' |