The court denied HELENE claim for damages based on other expenses, including: {i} shipping, customs, and incidentals relating to the two shipments ofm compressors; (ii) the cost of obsolete insulation and tubing that m purchased onlyr for use Twith m compressors; (iii) the cost of obsolete tooling purchased only for production of units with m compressors; and (iv) labor costs for four days when M; production hne was idle because it had no compressors to install in the air conditioning units. The court denied an award for these items on the ground that it would lead to a double rec oyery because "those costs are accounted for in Mg recovery on its lost prots claim." It also denied an award for the cost ofmodification of electrical panels for use with substitute Sanyo compressors on the ground that the cost was not attributable to the breach. Finally, the court denied recovery on M; claim of 4131]!) additional lost sales in Italy. On appeal, m argues that it did not breach the agreement, that W is not entitled to lost prots because it maintained inventory let'els in excess of the maximum number of possible lost sales, that the calculation of the number of lost sales was improper, and that the district court improperly excluded fixed costs and depreciation 'om the manufacturing cost in calculating lo st prots. m cross-appeals, claiming that it is entitled to the additional out-ofpocket expenses and the lost profits on additional sales denied by Judge Munson. Case 3. M Cmierm v. m Corporation, Tl F.3d 1024 [2d lE'ir. 1995). In January 1933, W agreed to sell l compressors to m for use mm W" line of portable room air conditioners. The air conditioners were scheduled to go on sale in the spring and summer of 1933. Prior to executing the contract, m sent m a sample compressor and accompanying written performance specications. The compressors were scheduled to be delivered in three shipments before May 15, 193.3. m sent the first shipment by sea on March 26 "FOB Italian factory." m paid for this shipment, which arrived at its Italian factory on April 20, by letter of credit. m sent a second shipment of compressors on or about May 5'. [3515,13,], also remitted payment for this shipment by letter of credit. While the second shipment was an, route, DEE-ht. discovered that the rst lot of compressors did not conform to the sample model and accompanying specifications. Dn I'vIay 13, after a m representative visited the [2315,13,], factory in Italy, HELEN: informed m that 93 percent of the compressors were rejected in quality control checks because they had lower cooling capacity and consumed more power than the sample model and specications. After several unsuccessful attempts to cure the defects in the compressors, W asked W to supply new compressors conforming to the original sample and specications. m refus ed= claiming that the performance specifications were "inadvertently communicated" to Ilsltht In a faxed letter dated May 23, 1933, m cancelled the contract. Although it was able to expedite a previously planned order of suitable compressors om Sanyo, another supplier= Mwas unable to obtain in a timely fashion substitute compressors om other sources and thus suffered a loss in its sales volume of W during the 1933 selling season. W led the instant action under the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (\"CISG\" or "the Convention") for breach of contract and failure to deliver conforming goods. Dn January Ill], 1991, Judge Cholaltis granted Mg motion for partial summary judgment, holding m liable for breach of contract. After three years of discovery and a bench trial on the issue of damages= Judge Munson, to whom the case had been transferred, held m liable to m for $1,248,331.37\". This amount included consequential damages for: (j) lost profits resulting from a diminished sales level of W units, (ii) expenses that [2315.111 incurred in attempting to remedy the nonconformity of the compressors, (iii) the cost of expediting shipment of previously ordered Sanyo compressors after m rejected the W compressors, and (iv) costs of handling and storing the rejected compressors. The district court also awarded prejudgment interest under CISG art. J3. 1. If the compressors shipped by Rotorex to Delchi were perfectly conforming, the risk of loss would shift to Delchi when they arrived at its Italian factory 2. If Delchi had not declined to cure the noncomformity of the compressors, Delchi would have had the right to cure the nonconformity of the compressors even if the time of performance has expired. 3. Assuming no Article 96 declaration has been filed, the agreement between the buyer (Delchi.) and the seller (Rotorex) need not be in writing to be enforced regardless of the purchase price. 4. If the MRI was sold by Rotorex to Delchi with the term "EXW," the risk of loss passes to Shared Imaging, Inc. when they are unloaded from the carrier at the port of delivery. 5. Under CISG Delchi is entitled to the damages awarded by the trial judge, whose judgment should be affirmed by the Second Circuit