Frigaliment V. B. N. S. Case Study
Frigaliment v. B.N.S
Facts: Frigaliment sued B.N.S. There were two contracts that involved selling chickens. In the first contract B.N.S was in agreeance with selling 75,000 pounds of 2.5-3 pounds of chicken, to Frigaliment. 50,000 pounds of chicken at 2.5-3 pounds at a higher price were agreed in the second contract. B.N.S fulfilled the first contract with two shipments. The first shipment fell short. B.N.S made up for the short shipment in their second shipment. Frigaliment accused B.N.S of shipping the larger chicken not to their expectations. Frigaliment protested the rest of the shipments. B.N.S said that their only obligations was to ship chicken that met the requirements stated in the contract.
Issue: “How should the term chicken, as …show more content…
Rule: For a state to pass state regulation of commerce, the state must pass a three prong test to determine if it allowed under the commerce clause act. (1) Regulation pursues a legitimate state end. (2) Regulation is rationally related to that end. And (3) Balancing: The burden on interstate commerce is outweighed by the state’s need for the regulation. Analysis: The state of Confusion follows passes both of the first two test. Their regulation does pursue a legitimate end. There is also rationale behind that end. However, the state of Confusion is putting a burden on the neighboring state of Washington. By limiting their granite to only the state of Confusion. Which is in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause..Ron is from the state of Nevada. Bill is from the state of California. California and Nevada are different states. The amount in controversy is more than $100,000 which is more than the $75,000. Conclusion: Since the state of Confusion is impeding on the commerce of the granite business of Washington. They are in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. Resulting in their law being unconstitutional and
Facts: Frigaliment sued B.N.S. There were two contracts that involved selling chickens. In the first contract B.N.S was in agreeance with selling 75,000 pounds of 2.5-3 pounds of chicken, to Frigaliment. 50,000 pounds of chicken at 2.5-3 pounds at a higher price were agreed in the second contract. B.N.S fulfilled the first contract with two shipments. The first shipment fell short. B.N.S made up for the short shipment in their second shipment. Frigaliment accused B.N.S of shipping the larger chicken not to their expectations. Frigaliment protested the rest of the shipments. B.N.S said that their only obligations was to ship chicken that met the requirements stated in the contract.
Issue: “How should the term chicken, as …show more content…
Rule: For a state to pass state regulation of commerce, the state must pass a three prong test to determine if it allowed under the commerce clause act. (1) Regulation pursues a legitimate state end. (2) Regulation is rationally related to that end. And (3) Balancing: The burden on interstate commerce is outweighed by the state’s need for the regulation. Analysis: The state of Confusion follows passes both of the first two test. Their regulation does pursue a legitimate end. There is also rationale behind that end. However, the state of Confusion is putting a burden on the neighboring state of Washington. By limiting their granite to only the state of Confusion. Which is in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause..Ron is from the state of Nevada. Bill is from the state of California. California and Nevada are different states. The amount in controversy is more than $100,000 which is more than the $75,000. Conclusion: Since the state of Confusion is impeding on the commerce of the granite business of Washington. They are in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. Resulting in their law being unconstitutional and