Mrs. Clark's Foods (Clark's) was an Iowa corporation engaged in the business of labeling and distributing juices. Clark's purchased apple juice concentrate in April 2011 from International Suntrade, Inc. (Suntrade), and Miller & Smith Foods, Inc. (Miller & Smith), which are Canadian- based food brokers and distributors. In November 2011, Clark's found out the concentrate contained isomaltose, rendering it adulterated and subject to recall. Clark's provided notice of the nonconformity to Suntrade and Miller & Smith in December 2011. Clark's subsequently sued Suntrade and Miller & Smith for breach of contract, breach of warranty, negligence, and fraud. Suntrade and Miller & Smith alleged that the seven-month delay in subjecting the concentrate to authenticity testing was unreasonable under Article 38 of the CISG as Mrs. Clark did not examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Suntrade and Miller & Smith contended that timely inspection in the case of perishable or durable goods should be no more than three to four days. Mrs. Clark responded that reasonableness is a fact-specific inquiry and the CISG sets an outer limit of two years in recognition that there may be long period of time before nonconformity is discovered with some products. The concentrate in this case had a shelf life up to two years. Was Mrs. Clark's inspection performed in a timely manner as required by the CISG? What is a "short a period as is practicable" pursuant to the CISG?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

As per the Article 38 of the CISG it is the duty of the buyer to inspect the goods as soon as possib... View the full answer