Can u help me do case brief please. A good answer = LIKE

Please write like :

facts ( when where who what happened, use own words, if you copy the case material, no high score)

Procedural history( trial court , court of appeal( if there is ),

supreme court( if there)

legal issue/s of the case ;( what the parties argue for ?, should be yes or no question/s)

Argument or the parties( you should list the arguments of both parties on the issue/issues)

rule of law ( legal sources , what law and specific articles concerned, what previous precedents applied, write the main points)

holding (very simple , what the result of the case?)

reasoning of the court (why the court make the above holding?, how the rule of law applied to the case, this part is very important.)

your comments- as much more as you can

INFORMATION FOR CASE IS BELOW.

Schmitz-Werke GmbH & Co. v. Rockland Industries, Inc.

37 F.Appx 687 (2002)

United States Court of Appeals (4th Cir.)

BACKGROUND AND FACTS

The seller is an American fabric manufacturer that sold "Trevira" drapery fabric to the plaintiff (buyer) in Germany. During negotiations, the seller stated that the fabric was particularly suited to be a printing base for transfer printing. The buyer had another German company, PMD, experiment with printing on a sample. The buyer informed the seller that although they were satisfied with the material, there were some problems. After receiving 15,000 meters of fabric, the buyer noted additional problems but was encouraged by the seller to continue printing. A second shipment of 60,000 meters was received. When PMD complained about problems in printing on the fabric, another German company was asked to

inspect the fabric. Their report indicated that over 15 percent of the fabric was lower grade or seconds. The buyer returned the unused portion, and after negotiations broke down, this suit was brought for

breach of warranty.

Before Widener and King, Circuit Judges, and Garwood, Sr. Circuit Judge (5th Cir.) sitting by designation.

AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION

Seller argues that buyer must demonstrate both the existence and the nature of the defect in the fabric before it can recover for breach of warrantyand that to show the nature of that defect, expert testimony is required. Article 35 of the CISG governs the duty of the seller to deliver goods that conform with the contract. Article 35(2) lists various reasons goods may not conform with the contract, including goods which were expressly or impliedly warranted to be fit for a particular purpose. Under Article 35(2)(b) goods are unfit unless they "are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer

did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgment." In response, buyer argues that all it need show is that the goods were unfit for the particular purpose warranted transfer printingand that it need not show precisely

why or how the goods were unfit if it can show that the transfer printing process the goods underwent was performed competently and normally. Seller is correct that buyer did not provide any evidence at trial that would establish the exact nature of the

defect in the Trevira fabric. The text of the CISG is silent on this matter.

Under either the CISG or Maryland law, buyer may prevail on a claim that the fabric was unfit for the purpose for which it was expressly warranted (transfer printing) by showing that when the fabric was properly used for the purpose seller warranted, the results were shoddyeven if buyer has introduced no evidence as to just why or how the fabric was unfit. Buyer has shown that the fabric was defective the fabric's defect was that it was unfit for

transfer printing. Seller attempts to counter this argument by claiming that this improperly shifts the burden of proof. Seller's concerns are misplacedbuyer still must prove that the transfer printing process was ordinary and competently performed, and still must prove that the fabric was defectiveit just permits buyer to do so without proving the exact nature of the defect.

There was significant evidence regarding PMD's transfer printing process presented at trial. . . . The district court found that seller warranted its fabric to be fit for transfer printing, that the fabric was transfer printed in a normal and competent way, and that the resulting printed fabric was unsatisfactory. This is enough to support the district court's factual finding in favor of buyer on the warranty claimthe fabric was not fit for the purpose for which it was warranted. . . .

Seller also argues that even if the court properly found that the Trevira fabric was not particularly well suited for transfer printing as warranted, buyer cannot recover on such a warranty because it did not in fact rely on seller's advice as required under CISG Article

35(2)(b). Seller is correct that Article 35(2)(b) of the CISG requires that the buyer reasonably rely on the representations of the seller before liability attaches for breach of a warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. The district court explicitly found that buyer

relied on the statements of seller's representative that the Trevira fabric was particularly well suited for transfer printing. The court also found that buyer continued to print the fabric with the express consent of seller after it discovered and reported problems with

the fabric. The district court's finding that buyer relied on seller's statements proclaiming the Trevira fabric's suitability for transfer printing is supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Decision. Under the CISG, the fabric was not fit for the purposes for which it was intended. The exact nature of the fabric's defect need not be proved. It was sufficient that the plaintiff prove that it had reasonably relied on the defendant's representations that the fabric was suitable for transfer printing, and that it was not.