Also known as: cargos · cargo's · freight · goods · shipment
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Goods transported by water, land, or air as freight.
Continental Bank arranged for a foreign manufacturer to ship cargo containers of electronics to distributors across the United States. The manufacturer placed the cargo into international shipping channels without directing any particular shipment to the forum state. When a buyer in the forum state sued the manufacturer over a defect, the court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the manufacturer had not purposefully targeted the forum.
Catherine Carter orally promised to pay Coastal Shipping a commission if it induced a seller to transfer a waterfront warehouse containing cargo to her. The warehouse itself counted as an interest in land, but the commission agreement did not qualify as a contract for the sale of goods under the UCC.
Cypress Technologies contracted to buy a shipment of specialized circuit boards as cargo but never identified specific units to the contract before the seller repudiated. The buyer elected to proceed under the section governing goods still unidentified to the contract rather than attempting to recover particular boards.
A state sold surplus timber from state forests as cargo to local mills at a discount. The sale contract required buyers to process the timber inside the state before exporting it. A buyer challenged the condition as an unconstitutional downstream restriction on interstate commerce in goods.
Central Dynamics contracted to purchase a rare vintage aircraft engine identified to the contract as cargo. When the seller failed to deliver, Central Dynamics sought to replevy the engine under the buyer remedies provision allowing specific performance or replevin of goods.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. held mineral rights to extract coal from land beneath a residential area for later shipment as cargo. A state statute later prohibited mining that would cause surface subsidence. The company claimed the regulation destroyed the economic value of its coal rights without compensation.
In 1878 the Pennsylvania Coal Company executed a deed that conveyed the surface of property but reserved in express terms the right to remove all the coal under the same. The grantee took the premises with the risk and waived all claim for damages that might arise from mining out the coal. The plaintiffs claim under this deed. On May 27, 1921, the Pennsylvania legislature approved the Kohler Act. The statute forbids the mining of anthracite coal in such way as to cause the subsidence of any structure used as a human habitation. The statute provides exceptions for land where the surface is owned by the owner of the underlying coal and is distant more than one hundred and fifty feet from any improved property belonging to any other person. The plaintiffs brought a bill in equity to prevent the Pennsylvania Coal Company from mining under their property in such way as to remove the supports and cause a subsidence of the surface and of their house. The Court of Common Pleas found that if not restrained the defendant would cause the damage to prevent which the bill was brought. It denied an injunction, holding that the statute if applied to this case would be unconstitutional. On appeal the Supreme Court of the State agreed that the defendant had contract and property rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. It held that the statute was a legitimate exercise of the police power and directed a decree for the plaintiffs. A writ of error was granted bringing the case to this Court. As applied to this case the statute is admitted to destroy previously existing rights of property and contract. The case involves a single private house. The statute ordinarily does not apply to land when the surface is owned by the owner of the coal. The Attorney General of the State, the City of Scranton, and the representatives of other extensive interests were allowed to take part in the argument below and have submitted their contentions here. The statute purports to abolish what is recognized in Pennsylvania as an estate in land. The question presented concerns mining of coal under streets or cities in places where the right to mine such coal has been reserved.
View caseYes. The definition encompasses goods transported by water, land, or air.
…v. Tyson shall now be disapproved. Tompkins, a citizen of Pennsylvania, was injured on a dark night by a passing freight train of the Erie Railroad Company while walking along its right of way at Hughestown in that State. He claimed that the accident occurred through negligence in the operation, or…