Law of Tea.com
A WEB RESOURCE FOR THE TEA INDUSTRY
A WEB RESOURCE FOR THE TEA INDUSTRY
Cases generally addressing the tea trade deal with breach of international sales contracts for the
importing of tea as well as with the procedural complexities of importing the tea itself and accounting for
the appropriate import duty. Additionally, domestic courts have also been called upon to wrestle with the
problem of market dominance where mergers are proposed between the larger tea concerns.
Daido Asia Japan Co. Ltd. v. Ines Charlotte Rothen, [2001] EWHC Ch. 153 (Jul. 24. 2001): English
chancery judge found against an executive of a gray market trading company who allegedly falsely
induced a Japanese importer into a contract for a shipment of “quality brand” tea, where the executive
knew the supplier had no intention of supplying the tea for which the Japanese importer had paid.
British & Benningtons Ltd. v. North West Cachar Tea Co., [1923] A.C. 48 (U.K.H.L.): tea trade case
where buyers of tea had wrongfully repudiated contract such that sellers did not have to prove they
were ready and willing to deliver at time of repudiation to have their damages affirmed on appeal.
In The Flowergate, [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, an English judge concluded that an ocean carrier is not
liable for damage to a cocoa shipment due to its moisture level where the cocoa appeared to have been
in good condition at the time of its loading onto the ship. While not strictly a case involving tea, this
decision illustrates the need on the part of exporters of perishable commodities such as tea and cocoa
to be vigilant when packing their shipments.
Case C-130/02, Krings GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, [2004] E.C.R. I-2121 (Mar. 4. 2004):
German company’s import of mixture for use in production of tea-based beverage was reclassified as a
tea-based import under the EU tariff schedules.
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, 1961 A.I.R. 232: a state law imposing taxes on the carriage of
goods over roads or inland waterways was a local restraint on interstate trade that violated the
Constitution of India.
Carter, Macy & Co. v. Matthews, 220 A.D. 679, 222 N.Y.S. 472 (1927): appellate court noted that where
alleged contract’s description of tea to be provided was ambiguous the “usage and custom in the tea
trade” was a proper subject to put on with experts to the jury to explain the contract.
In Lilienblum v. Wissotzky & Co., 213 A.D. 18 (N.Y. 1925), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York set aside service of a lawsuit against a defunct Russian tea company when one of its
directors was personally served in New York while on business for another company of which he was
also a director.
Consolidated Tea Co. v. Oliver’s Wharf, [1910] 2 K.B. 395: a wharfinger who routinely carried goods for
its customers was not a "public carrier," and as such was not subject to the same duties (i.e. strict
liability for the goods being carried).
Bradley v. Carritt, [1903] A.C. 253 (HL): a tea company mortgaged its shares as security for a loan from
a tea broker under which the company promised that if it sold tea without resort to the broker, the
company would nonetheless pay the broker a fee as if it had done so. Their Lordships found that
provision unenforceable once the mortgage was redeemed based upon prior mortgage case law.
Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd. v. Scarth, (1885) I.L.R. 11 Cal. 545: an assistant tea planter left his
employment on a company's tea estate to become the manager of another company's tea garden, in
spite of his employment contract, under which he had promised to work solely for the first company for a
term of years. The court found that while English law allowed certain post-employment restraint of trade
agreements, Indian law did not. However, technically, the employee could be held to his promise to work
exclusively for his first employer for the contractual term (for remuneration).
U.S. v. Industria Basileir, 849 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir. 1988) (unpublished): Section 801 of the Food, Drug &
Cosmetics Act of 1938 gives the FDA the authority to inspect imported items. Under section 304 of the
Act, the FDA can order adulterated or misbranded items seized and destroyed. This case shows that
the FDA consider tea within the ambit of these provisions. This case is not available, however, to cite
for its holding, that the appellants did not have standing to object to the order to customs authorities to
destroy the tea.
R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N.V., 867 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1989): anti-trust case; remanded to allow case
to go forward. The third largest herbal tea producer sought to prevent the merger of the first and
second largest. At the time of this proposed merger of Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. and Celestial Seasonings,
Inc., Lipton was a “wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever. Unilever actually purchased Lyons Tea later in
1996, which had earlier purchased Tetley’s (in 1972). Ultimately, the R.C. Bigelow case became moot
because Kraft cancelled its sale of Celestial to Lipton.
Similar difficulties arose a few years later in 2001, when Unilever Taiwan Ltd. successfully applied to the
Taiwan Fair Trade Commission for permission for its merger with CPC/AJI (Taiwan) Ltd., although
CPC/AJI did not actually engage in selling beverages such as tea.
importing of tea as well as with the procedural complexities of importing the tea itself and accounting for
the appropriate import duty. Additionally, domestic courts have also been called upon to wrestle with the
problem of market dominance where mergers are proposed between the larger tea concerns.
Daido Asia Japan Co. Ltd. v. Ines Charlotte Rothen, [2001] EWHC Ch. 153 (Jul. 24. 2001): English
chancery judge found against an executive of a gray market trading company who allegedly falsely
induced a Japanese importer into a contract for a shipment of “quality brand” tea, where the executive
knew the supplier had no intention of supplying the tea for which the Japanese importer had paid.
British & Benningtons Ltd. v. North West Cachar Tea Co., [1923] A.C. 48 (U.K.H.L.): tea trade case
where buyers of tea had wrongfully repudiated contract such that sellers did not have to prove they
were ready and willing to deliver at time of repudiation to have their damages affirmed on appeal.
In The Flowergate, [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 1, an English judge concluded that an ocean carrier is not
liable for damage to a cocoa shipment due to its moisture level where the cocoa appeared to have been
in good condition at the time of its loading onto the ship. While not strictly a case involving tea, this
decision illustrates the need on the part of exporters of perishable commodities such as tea and cocoa
to be vigilant when packing their shipments.
Case C-130/02, Krings GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, [2004] E.C.R. I-2121 (Mar. 4. 2004):
German company’s import of mixture for use in production of tea-based beverage was reclassified as a
tea-based import under the EU tariff schedules.
Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, 1961 A.I.R. 232: a state law imposing taxes on the carriage of
goods over roads or inland waterways was a local restraint on interstate trade that violated the
Constitution of India.
Carter, Macy & Co. v. Matthews, 220 A.D. 679, 222 N.Y.S. 472 (1927): appellate court noted that where
alleged contract’s description of tea to be provided was ambiguous the “usage and custom in the tea
trade” was a proper subject to put on with experts to the jury to explain the contract.
In Lilienblum v. Wissotzky & Co., 213 A.D. 18 (N.Y. 1925), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court
of New York set aside service of a lawsuit against a defunct Russian tea company when one of its
directors was personally served in New York while on business for another company of which he was
also a director.
Consolidated Tea Co. v. Oliver’s Wharf, [1910] 2 K.B. 395: a wharfinger who routinely carried goods for
its customers was not a "public carrier," and as such was not subject to the same duties (i.e. strict
liability for the goods being carried).
Bradley v. Carritt, [1903] A.C. 253 (HL): a tea company mortgaged its shares as security for a loan from
a tea broker under which the company promised that if it sold tea without resort to the broker, the
company would nonetheless pay the broker a fee as if it had done so. Their Lordships found that
provision unenforceable once the mortgage was redeemed based upon prior mortgage case law.
Brahmaputra Tea Co. Ltd. v. Scarth, (1885) I.L.R. 11 Cal. 545: an assistant tea planter left his
employment on a company's tea estate to become the manager of another company's tea garden, in
spite of his employment contract, under which he had promised to work solely for the first company for a
term of years. The court found that while English law allowed certain post-employment restraint of trade
agreements, Indian law did not. However, technically, the employee could be held to his promise to work
exclusively for his first employer for the contractual term (for remuneration).
U.S. v. Industria Basileir, 849 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir. 1988) (unpublished): Section 801 of the Food, Drug &
Cosmetics Act of 1938 gives the FDA the authority to inspect imported items. Under section 304 of the
Act, the FDA can order adulterated or misbranded items seized and destroyed. This case shows that
the FDA consider tea within the ambit of these provisions. This case is not available, however, to cite
for its holding, that the appellants did not have standing to object to the order to customs authorities to
destroy the tea.
R.C. Bigelow, Inc. v. Unilever N.V., 867 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1989): anti-trust case; remanded to allow case
to go forward. The third largest herbal tea producer sought to prevent the merger of the first and
second largest. At the time of this proposed merger of Thomas J. Lipton, Inc. and Celestial Seasonings,
Inc., Lipton was a “wholly-owned subsidiary of Unilever. Unilever actually purchased Lyons Tea later in
1996, which had earlier purchased Tetley’s (in 1972). Ultimately, the R.C. Bigelow case became moot
because Kraft cancelled its sale of Celestial to Lipton.
Similar difficulties arose a few years later in 2001, when Unilever Taiwan Ltd. successfully applied to the
Taiwan Fair Trade Commission for permission for its merger with CPC/AJI (Taiwan) Ltd., although
CPC/AJI did not actually engage in selling beverages such as tea.
COURT DECISIONS OF INTEREST
TRADE CASES
TRADE CASES
| © 2009 - 2010 Law of Tea.com |