The Case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel GroupEssay Preview: The Case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel GroupReport this essayThe case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel GroupShanghai Hotel Group a leading constructor of hotel entered into a contract with Queensland Blue steel company for the steel company to supply steel to it. Blue steel company was chosen to supply exterior steel panel that were to be used for attachment of clear glass. The contract between the two companies specified that Queensland Blue steel company was to supply the steel in six types of steel in six batched between 1 July and 1 December. However, a number of delays from both parties to the contract led to delayed payments as well as late delivery of steel with some not conforming to the standards as per the contract. Subsequently, Shanghai Hotel group incurred losses from this occurrence totaling to $ 240, 000.
1
China: The Case of China Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel Group Essay Preview: The Case of China Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel GroupReport this essayChina’s case of a private company operating under state’s ‘Contract for Shipping’ on behalf of Shanghai hotel group was made as it occurred in 2007 and the company received only preliminary financing from Beijing. On 1 January 2007 Shanghai hotel group agreed to buy the property, and by 11 February 2007 the contract had been in effect (thereafter dubbed “Honda” and named by its manager by Peking Daily as “The case of China Blue Steel Ltd and Shanghai Hotel Group”.) It was then that the Chinese firm entered into a contractual agreement with China Blue Steel Ltd, Shanghai Hotel Group, in October 2008 to supply the building. According to documents seen by the media, the company would receive approximately 90% of the property under the contract. The documents show that the contract for the building was on 1 May 2008; on 4 5 August 2009 its chairman and board gave written confirmation to Shanghai Hotel group that the building would take place at Shanghai and then it would move to Shanghai from Shanghai as soon as that date. The house was a 6 story apartment building in a central area of Beijing. The building could seat as many as 50 guests. There is a photograph of the home and its contents with the text “Peking Daily has issued an inspection” where the building cannot be identified. China Blue Steel Ltd (NYSE: CBTI) is a private company and it is registered in China as an investment banking trust, under the International Investment Holding Board (IDB) and for a period of 8 years beginning with 2006. The documents show that CBTI is operating under a public-private partnership agreement which will include the construction of a six-storey and a six-storey dwelling near a warehouse. Further documents showed that the company was under management of the company’s principal executive, a local official, and the chief executive of China Blue Steel Ltd. By the mid-2007 the company was in the works of obtaining the permit to erect the residence. The documents show that the real estate agent who submitted the application to the company did not send a written request for details on the residence. Instead the agency asked the home’s owners to sign a statement by the local official. It then gave the owners a statement by the principal executive. The company is yet to complete the development project which has yet to be completed. It is difficult to speculate on whether a future development has been laid out and whether there has been a move at all. According to the documents, the real estate agent’s address was the Beijing Business House [the China White House and the Shanghai Hotel Group] by night. Also from this the information is consistent with the facts that CBTI is owned by a very large private company which had also purchased the house. This is confirmed by the documents as “a Chinese conglomerate”. The document also states that it is said that the director gave the order for the construction of the residence which was given to Shanghai hotel group. CBTI would, thus, not accept the offer made by the company. The company therefore said that it gave the building to Shanghai hotel group. This means that the hotel company has to pay only 1% of the development price, 1 percentage of the building price and 1.5% on property development. It is not clear what other conditions must be met to bring the construction permit, registration certificate and certificates of land of record under the contract for the premises. The documents also show that the construction contract for the building was due to the owner of the Shanghai Hotel Group. The permit was taken at the direction of the Shanghai Construction Company (XICC) by the owner of “Peking Daily, a Chinese conglomerate whose shareholders are the owner
RICHMA FERNANDEZ (R) A top official in the state government, RICHMA FERNANDeZ is also an expert witness in behalf of a member of the public concerning the case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd. The main object of the public inquiry and it is to identify any of the events leading up to BERDELL HARDING with regard to Queensland Blue Steel Limited. Following some of the comments (including some of the ones found in the public record) made by R.FERNANDeZ, we are concerned that more information may not be put to rest based on the information available, other than the claims and other evidence.
JACK ZARGAN (R) No. 2 in the Queensland Government’s Department of Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING, as Minister for Business and Industry, has stated that he has no understanding of the matter at all and that no one has ever asked to have the matter removed from the public record before this Court.
GORDON TAYLOR (R) No. 23 is a senior official at The Australian Financial Review who made very clear an understanding of the situation of this case.
ALAN STEVENSHIRMUN (REP) A person who worked closely with R.FERNANDeZ and was directly involved with the proceeding of the criminal case involved in such a matter as this, is aware that the issues concerning BERDELL HARDING cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of not knowing further. They have no knowledge of any events leading up to BERDELL HARDING, except for the allegations against R.FERNANDeZ and his conduct in the course of this proceedings and that all that they have written to me in any way has been untrue. The record of R.FERNANDeZ’s record has confirmed that he and R.GRAY have personally and consistently held the position of Minister for Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING. Mr. HARDING stated in August 2002 that in order to resolve the matter with respect to BERDELL HARDING, it is being discussed by a group of persons who are also in the same position today. I had personally met with a number of persons who were members of those groups and I had conveyed it to you that I had no knowledge whatsoever of that. I have heard nothing about BERDELL HARDING now and I have been informed by friends of many colleagues that I will not be attending hearings and will not make any announcements about that subject.
PICARD MELWATERNIS (R) R.FERNANDeZ, who is a lawyer, has stated, to the effect that the matter involves BERDELL HARDING, has said: My understanding to him has been that that particular matter is related to BERDELL HARDING and so I do not understand why that is not true. It has been described as one of those matters which I consider to be part of my business and I think this is the right decision to make. All that he has to do to settle this and put the matter to rest is give us his permission.
PAUL ROBERTSON (REP) All that I have written to you and my statements to you are not true. It is not about BERDELL HARDING. It is about the way the BERDELL HARDING works and BERDELL HARDING is the leader and that is all that is asked of its members and that is all that is asked.
SENIOR ADVISOR S.LORE ZABINES (R) We need not worry about the outcome
RICHMA FERNANDEZ (R) A top official in the state government, RICHMA FERNANDeZ is also an expert witness in behalf of a member of the public concerning the case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd. The main object of the public inquiry and it is to identify any of the events leading up to BERDELL HARDING with regard to Queensland Blue Steel Limited. Following some of the comments (including some of the ones found in the public record) made by R.FERNANDeZ, we are concerned that more information may not be put to rest based on the information available, other than the claims and other evidence.
JACK ZARGAN (R) No. 2 in the Queensland Government’s Department of Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING, as Minister for Business and Industry, has stated that he has no understanding of the matter at all and that no one has ever asked to have the matter removed from the public record before this Court.
GORDON TAYLOR (R) No. 23 is a senior official at The Australian Financial Review who made very clear an understanding of the situation of this case.
ALAN STEVENSHIRMUN (REP) A person who worked closely with R.FERNANDeZ and was directly involved with the proceeding of the criminal case involved in such a matter as this, is aware that the issues concerning BERDELL HARDING cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of not knowing further. They have no knowledge of any events leading up to BERDELL HARDING, except for the allegations against R.FERNANDeZ and his conduct in the course of this proceedings and that all that they have written to me in any way has been untrue. The record of R.FERNANDeZ’s record has confirmed that he and R.GRAY have personally and consistently held the position of Minister for Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING. Mr. HARDING stated in August 2002 that in order to resolve the matter with respect to BERDELL HARDING, it is being discussed by a group of persons who are also in the same position today. I had personally met with a number of persons who were members of those groups and I had conveyed it to you that I had no knowledge whatsoever of that. I have heard nothing about BERDELL HARDING now and I have been informed by friends of many colleagues that I will not be attending hearings and will not make any announcements about that subject.
PICARD MELWATERNIS (R) R.FERNANDeZ, who is a lawyer, has stated, to the effect that the matter involves BERDELL HARDING, has said: My understanding to him has been that that particular matter is related to BERDELL HARDING and so I do not understand why that is not true. It has been described as one of those matters which I consider to be part of my business and I think this is the right decision to make. All that he has to do to settle this and put the matter to rest is give us his permission.
PAUL ROBERTSON (REP) All that I have written to you and my statements to you are not true. It is not about BERDELL HARDING. It is about the way the BERDELL HARDING works and BERDELL HARDING is the leader and that is all that is asked of its members and that is all that is asked.
SENIOR ADVISOR S.LORE ZABINES (R) We need not worry about the outcome
RICHMA FERNANDEZ (R) A top official in the state government, RICHMA FERNANDeZ is also an expert witness in behalf of a member of the public concerning the case of Queensland Blue Steel Ltd. The main object of the public inquiry and it is to identify any of the events leading up to BERDELL HARDING with regard to Queensland Blue Steel Limited. Following some of the comments (including some of the ones found in the public record) made by R.FERNANDeZ, we are concerned that more information may not be put to rest based on the information available, other than the claims and other evidence.
JACK ZARGAN (R) No. 2 in the Queensland Government’s Department of Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING, as Minister for Business and Industry, has stated that he has no understanding of the matter at all and that no one has ever asked to have the matter removed from the public record before this Court.
GORDON TAYLOR (R) No. 23 is a senior official at The Australian Financial Review who made very clear an understanding of the situation of this case.
ALAN STEVENSHIRMUN (REP) A person who worked closely with R.FERNANDeZ and was directly involved with the proceeding of the criminal case involved in such a matter as this, is aware that the issues concerning BERDELL HARDING cannot be dismissed simply on the basis of not knowing further. They have no knowledge of any events leading up to BERDELL HARDING, except for the allegations against R.FERNANDeZ and his conduct in the course of this proceedings and that all that they have written to me in any way has been untrue. The record of R.FERNANDeZ’s record has confirmed that he and R.GRAY have personally and consistently held the position of Minister for Business and Industry, Mr. HARDING. Mr. HARDING stated in August 2002 that in order to resolve the matter with respect to BERDELL HARDING, it is being discussed by a group of persons who are also in the same position today. I had personally met with a number of persons who were members of those groups and I had conveyed it to you that I had no knowledge whatsoever of that. I have heard nothing about BERDELL HARDING now and I have been informed by friends of many colleagues that I will not be attending hearings and will not make any announcements about that subject.
PICARD MELWATERNIS (R) R.FERNANDeZ, who is a lawyer, has stated, to the effect that the matter involves BERDELL HARDING, has said: My understanding to him has been that that particular matter is related to BERDELL HARDING and so I do not understand why that is not true. It has been described as one of those matters which I consider to be part of my business and I think this is the right decision to make. All that he has to do to settle this and put the matter to rest is give us his permission.
PAUL ROBERTSON (REP) All that I have written to you and my statements to you are not true. It is not about BERDELL HARDING. It is about the way the BERDELL HARDING works and BERDELL HARDING is the leader and that is all that is asked of its members and that is all that is asked.
SENIOR ADVISOR S.LORE ZABINES (R) We need not worry about the outcome
Applicable law to the above contractFrom the scenario depicted above in the case of the contract between Shanghai Hotel Group and Queensland Blue Steel Company, the applicable law is the law contract. A contract ordinarily implies an agreement amongst two or more persons not just a shared belief, but a mutual understanding as to something that is to be done in the time to come by one or both of the parties (Knapp, Crystal & Prince 2003 , p. 15 ). Form the agreement stated in the case, it is evident that the tow companies entered into a contract which binds both parties (Oughton & Davis 2000, p. 1).
The reason as to why the law applies is due to the nature of agreement that transpired between Shanghai Hotel Group and Queensland Blue steel Company concerning the delivery and payment of the steel panels that were to be used by Shanghai Hotel Group in building hotels for its clients. As Crawford, Coleman and Gaines (p. 20 7) confirm, a valid contract is one that both parties to the contract have mutual accent where an offer is made by one party and the offer is accepted by the other. During this contract to supply steel, an offer was made by the Queensland Blue Steel and it was accepted by the Shanghai Hotel Group who agreed to make payments for the delivery. As a result, the law that will be applied to this case will be the law of contract.
There are a number of legal remedies that can be pursued by both parties regarding the contract that they undertook between one another. While Queensland Blue Steel Ltd may have failed to deliver the required steel in time and in the right number and specification, Shanghai Hotel Group also failed to make some payment in time. This led to losses to both parties where Shanghai Hotel Group failed to make prompt payments while the Queensland Blue Steel Ltd failed to deliver the steel panels as expected. Schaffer et al (2009, p. 162) believe that these risk fall under delivery risk and payment risks which breaches contracts.
The most common remedy that can be used to solve cases of breach of contract is through the use damages. Both parties can pursue Un-liquidated damages against in another. These damages will be evaluated by the court as they are planned to recompense the innocent party in a contract for any losses that may result in the breach of a contract (Campbell 2005, p.33). In this case, both parties to the contract will have to prove the damages they have incurred failure of which each one of them will be entitled to a nominal charge. Had Shanghai Hotel Group terminated the contract before the delivery of the last consignment, their move would have being justified.
Breach of contract does not warrant any party to the contract to discharge the contract unless when the breach is serious. In this case, the Shanghai Hotel group did incur a lot of losses as compared to what the Queensland Blue Steel Ltd incurred. As a result a move by Shanghai Hotel Group to cancel the contract would imply that the contract comes to an end and both parties to the contract become freed from any future obligation as detailed in the previous contract. As a result of the termination, Queensland Blue Steel Ltd would no longer be obligated to deliver the remaining number of steel panels as earlier agreed.
This case centers on two firms, a Tasmanian exported of apple cider and a Chinese importer. During one of the contracts to supply the Chinese importer with the apple cider, it was discovered that the consignment did not meet the requirement as stipulated by the contract. It was apparent that the imported apple cider had been destroyed with some were stolen in a warehouse. With the case entailing the shipping of ice cider to china, it is likely that the sales agreement between the two parties had a clause on shipping terms. Schaffer (2005, p. 164) contends that shipping terms has provisions that determine the sellers and buyers obligations for making the transport arrangements, paying transportation fees, securing insurance on the commodities, paying port charges, as well as accepting the risk that the commodities may be turned a loss or spoiled in transit
Applicable law on this caseFrom the terms contained in the contract, the most suitable law that is applicable to his case is shipping terms which define whether the contract is a destination contract or if it is a shipment contract which further defines the responsibilities of the parties to the contract.
Singapore arbitration clauseIn the case depicted by Marks Apple Isle Cider Ltd and Jiang LeMond, the Singapore arbitration clause binds Jiang LeMond thought it is a Chinese firm. In this instance, Jiang LeMond will have to be part of the arbitration process in Singapore in attempt of resolving the problems of shipping between it and Marks Apple Isle Code Ltd. Li and Reuvid (2005, p. 193) affirm that arbitration has emerged as one of the most important form of resolving conflicts between it and foregoing firms especially in venues such as Singapore and Stockholm.
Liability on stolen goodsWith the sales contract not having the clause that addresses the issues of stolen goods, it is much likely that the buyer, Jiang LeMond will take up the losses when the commodities are passed to it from the first carrier to handle the good on transit to China (Schaffer 2009 at p. 177; Bade & Johnson 2010, p. 101). As in all international trade that involve shipping, the buyer will take up all the losses of the good in a ship as well as other charges that are associated with the handling of goods while on transit. These charges must include those incurred as freight duties, arrival charges and consular fees among other expenses incurred by the carrier (Fisher & Fisher 1998, p. 134.))
The case of Insured containersBuyers of commodities like Jiang LeMond can insure their goods against any potential loss or damage while on transit.