Help me doing the case brief from information below.

It should be like:

NAme:

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, try to read the material carefully, because the case material is editted one, if you want to have more comprehensive look into the case, you can make research online, generally speaking , you have a more detailed understanding of the case.)

your comments- as much more as you can

HERE is the material for case

Medical Marketing International, Inc. v. Internazionale Medico Scientifica, S.R.L. 1999 WL 311945 (1999); United States District Court (E.D. La.)

BACKGROUND AND FACTS Medical Marketing (MMI), the plaintiff, entered into an exclusive licensing agreement for the U.S. distribution of mammography units manufactured by the defendant (IMS) in Italy. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration seized the equipment because it did not comply with U.S. safety regulations. MMI argued that the defendant was responsible to ensure that its equipment met U.S. standards. When the defendant denied responsibility, MMI declared the contract avoided (terminated) on the grounds of nonconformity of the goods. The dispute was submitted to arbitration, and an award of $357,000 was given to MMI who brought this court action to enforce the award. DUVAL, DISTRICT J. The FAA outlines specific situations in which an arbitration decision may be overruled: . . . (4) if the arbitrators exceeded their powers. Instances in which the arbitrators "exceed their powers"may include violations of public policy or awards based on a "manifest disregard of the law."SeeW.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759,461 U.S. 757, 766, 103 S. Ct. 2177, 2183 (1983). IMS has alleged that the arbitrators' decision violates public policy of the international global market and that the arbitrators exhibited "manifest disregard of international sales law."Specifically, IMS argues that the arbitrators misapplied the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), and that they refused to follow a German Supreme Court case interpreting the CISG. MMI does not dispute that the CISG applies to the case at hand. Under the CISG, the finder of fact has a duty to regard the "international character" of the convention and to promote uniformity in its application. CISG Article 7. The Convention also provides that in an international contract for goods, goods conform to the contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used or are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller and relied upon by the buyer. CISG Article 35(2). To avoid a contract based on the nonconformity of goods, the buyer must allege and prove that the seller's breach was "fundamental" in nature. CISG Article 49. A breach is fundamental when it results in such detriment to the party that he or she is substantially deprived of what he or she is entitled to expect under the contract, unless the party in breach did not foresee such a result. CISG Article 25. At the arbitration, IMS argued that MMI was not entitled to avoid its contract with IMS based on nonconformity under Article 49, because IMS's breach was not "fundamental." IMS argued that the CISG did not require that it furnish MMI with equipment that complied with the United States GMP regulations. To support this proposition, IMS cited a German Supreme Court case, which held that under the CISG Article 35, a seller is generally not obligated to supply goods that conform to public laws and regulations enforced at the buyer's place of business. Entscheidunger des Bundersgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen(BGHZ), 129, 75 (8 March 1995). In that case, the court held that this general rule carries with it exceptions in three limited circumstances: (1) if the public laws and regulations of the buyer's state are identical to those enforced in the seller's state; (2) if the buyer informed the seller about those regulations; or (3) if due to" specia l circumstances," such as the existence of a seller's branch office in the buyer's state, the seller knew or should have known about the regulations at issue. The arbitration panel decided that under the third exception, the general rule did not apply to this case. The arbitrators held that IMS was, or should have been, aware of the GMP regulations prior to entering into the 1993 agreement, and explained their reasoning at length. IMS now argues that the arbitration panel refused to apply the CISG and the law as articulated by the German Supreme Court. It is clear from the arbitrators' written findings, however, that they carefully considered that decision and found that this case fit the exception and not the rule as articulated in that decision. The arbitrators' decision was neither contrary to public policy nor in manifest disregard of international sales law. Decision. The arbitration panel did not exceed its authority when it found that the Italian seller was in fundamental breach of contract. As a general rule, the fitness of goods sold under an international contract will be determined by reference to standards for such goods in the seller's country, unless, as in this case, the seller knew or should have known that the goods would not conform to the standards in the buyer's country. Comment. The district court's opinion is notable for its discussion of German case law. This seems in keeping with the basic principles of the CISG that state that the convention should be interpreted according to its "international character" and to "promote uniformity in its application."