国际贸易实务双语示范课案例精选[全文].docx
国际贸易实务双语示范课案例精选全文国际贸易实务(双语) 案例集山东工商学院中加学院国际贸易教研室目 录1【Case 1】CIF or Not?2【Case 2】CFR & Shipping Notice 3【Case 3】CFR & Goods Quality4【Case 4】The buyer delays the sending of the vessel under FOB1></a>.5【Case 5】Damage caused by serious quality mistake 6【Case 6】Fraud by quality clause8【Case 7】The buyer refuses to take delivery because of shortage 9【Case 8】Damage caused by improper packing 10【Case 9】Missingaddress in documentary collection 11【Case 10】Refusal of payment under D/P 12【Case 11】A dispute caused by D/A13【Case 12】D/P changed into D/A14【Case 13】Discrepancies in documents 1 15【Case 14】Discrepancies in documents 2 16【Case 15】Discrepancies in documents 3 17【Case 16】Discrepancies in documents 4 18【Case 17】Discrepancies in documents 519【Case 18】Discrepancies in documents 6 20【Case 19】Dispute on partial shipment23【Case 20】Is it a right decision?24【Case 21】The issuing bank refuses to make payment 25【Case 22】Damage caused by early shipment26【Case 23】“Gum” or “Gum Rosin”?27【Case 24】A quantity clause with “about” 28【Case 25】 Trap clause 130【Case 26】Trap clause 231【Case 27】Whose fault is it?33【Case 28】Silence amount to acceptance? 34【Case 29】A promise made to be broken【Case 1】CIF or Not?An import and export company H in China signed with a British company D a contract on CIF basis, whereby company H exported some light industrial products to company D. There were two special clauses in the contract: (1). “The goods must be shipped to a port in Britain fromShanghai in October 1996; the relevant L/C opened by company D should reach company H by the end of August; company H must guarantee that the loaded vessel arrives at the destination not later than December 1. (2) Should the loaded vessel arrive at the port of destination later than December 1, company D is entitled to cancel the contract. If the payment has been made at the time, it must be returned to company D exactly the amount.” After that, in the course ofclearing up contract files, a controversy arose in company H about the nature of this CIF contract. Some people held the opinion that the contract was on CIF basis in spite of the two particular terms, giving following reasons: firstly, the contract was signed under the trade term of CIF, which indicated the nature of the contract; secondly, company D made such special requirements only to protect their benefits; thirdly, the contract provided payment by L/C, which was in accordance with CIF terms characteristic of payment against documents. Others believed that according to INCOTERMS 2000, the sellers delivery obligations are fulfilled as long as the seller has completed shipment of goods at the appointed point and handed over to the buyer documents stipulated in the contract and so the seller is not required to guarantee the arrival of goods at the destination. Therefore, this contract was a false CIF contract, as it changed the nature of CIF term by taking physical delivery as a condition of fulfillment. The contract must be renegotiated. Finally, company H reached a common perception and got the two special clauses amended through negotiation with company D. The contract was carried out smoothly.Analysis:Although the contract was concluded on CIF basis, it was not a genuine CIF contract. This caseindicates the significance of CIF terms sphere of application. The two special clauses in the original contract not only contradicted withthe nature of CIF term, but also disagreed with the practices of international justice and arbitration.First, the original contract not only set a limit to the date of arrival, but also stipulated that the buyer was entitled to cancel the contract or demand back the payment that had already been made.Evidently, the restrictive date of arrival served not as the date of payment, but as a condition of payment. Therefore, legally the contract was not a genuine CIF contract as it made physical delivery a condition of payment.Second, under CIF terms, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods have passed the ships rail at the port of shipment. A contract that expands the buyers risk from the port of shipment to the port of destination is not a CIF contract. According to the provision in the original contract, company H was obligated to refund the payment in case of natural calamities or accidents during the course of delivering the goods, which evidenced that the seller assumed all the risks during the transport.Third, under CIF terms, the buyer must make payment against documents rather than against the arrival of the goods at the port of destination, provided that the seller has fulfilled his delivery obligations and presented the required documents. As per the original contract, whether company H could receive the payment for goods or not depended on buyers receiving on schedule. Although the seller might receive the payment by means of L/C, the payment would be taken back bythe buyer if the goods could not duly arrive at the port of destination. Besides, company D could take advantage of relevant L/C clauses that are in accordance with those in the contract to deny the seller the payment for goods. Company H could hardly make a claim for his rights under a normal CIF contract since this contract was the one “in name but not in reality”.【Case 2】CFR & Shipping NoticeAn import and export company in China signed an export contract with an importer in Marseilles, France on drawnwork tablecloth with an amount of USD80, 000, payment by D/P at sight.On the morning of January 8, 1997, the goods were all loaded onto the named vessel. The export salesperson in charge of this contract got so busy that he did not remember to send the buyer the shipping advice until the next morning. Unexpectedly, when the French importer went to the local insurance company to insure the goods, the latter had already learned that the ship suffered a wreck on January 9 and refused to underwrite the goods. The French importer immediately sent a telex saying, “owing to your delayed shipping advice, we are unable to insure the goodsbecause the vessel has been destroyed in a wreck. The loss of goods should be for your account. At the same time, you should compensate our profit and expense losses which amount to USD8, 000.” Soon all the shipping documents sent through the collecting bank were returned to theexport company, for the reason that the importer refused to take up the documents. Being aregular client of the exporters, the French importer did not insist on claiming for compensation after the exporter explained his difficult situation and apologized for the whole thing. However, the exporter should learn his lesson from this experience.Analysis:1. Under CFR terms, all the risks, duties and expenses after goods passing ships rail are normally borne by the buyer. However, Incoterms 2000 provides that “the seller must give the buyer sufficient notice”. Here the word “sufficient” refers to both “sufficient” content and “sufficient” time. The latter means the seller must give the shipping notice in a timely manner toallow sufficient time for the buyer to effect insurance of the goods. The later the seller sends the shipping notice, the less time the buyer has to insure the goods. In this case, the buyers failure to send the “sufficient notice” led to his loss of both goods and money. On the other hand, if theseller had informed the buyer immediately after shipping the goods, the buyer would have insured the goods in time at the local insurance company. In that case, the insurance company would have assumed its liability for compensation even if the accident had happened prior to the buyers effecting insurance as both the buyer and the insurance company were ignorant of the accident. Thus, it can be seen howimportant it is to send the shipping advice to the buyer in time under CFR terms. That is why shipping advice is often referred to as “insurance notice” in trade practices.2. When CFR terms or FOB terms are used in combination with payment by collection, the buyer may cover the goods against “sellers interest risk” before exporting the goods to counteract the buyers failure to effect insurance or the buyers refusal to retire the documents. Had the seller in this case covered the shipment against the said risk, the loss would have been somewhat mitigated.【Case 3】CFR & Goods QualityA French company imported a batch of wheat on CFR basis. The contract provided that the landing quality of the goods should be taken as final. However, when the goods arrived at the destination, the import quarantine bureau detained the goods as they had found that the goods contained a great deal of bacterium forbidden to enter the country.Unfortunately, the goods were consumed by a fire while in detainment. A dispute broke out between the buyer and the seller.Analysis:Under CFR terms, the buyer should bear all the risks after the goods have passed the ships rail and been loaded on board. However, should the seller be held responsible for any default before that point?In this case, it was the seller who should assume the risks. The reason is that although this was a CFR contract, the seller breached it by delivering the goods which failed to meet the quality standardprovided in the contract. This fundamental default has caused the detainment and then the loss of the goods. Therefore, while the risks had been transferred to the buyer, the sellers default returned the risks to the seller.Of course, under CFR contract, when the sellers default is not fundamental, the buyer should bear all the risks for any loss of the goods at the port of destination. Meanwhile, the seller should make due compensation to the buyer as per the contract and relevant laws.【 Case 4 】 The buyer delays the sending of the vessel under FOB. Company A in China signed a contract on FOB basis to export wheat toCompany B in Africa. It was contracted that shipment should be made in four lots. The shipping clause ran as follows: “the vessel nominated by the buyer should reach the port of shipment within eight days before the date of shipment. Otherwise, any of the sellers loss or damage thus incurred shall be borne by the buyer.” The contract also specified, “The buyer must give the seller a notice of vessel name and the estimated date of arrival by telecommunication five days before the vessel arrives at the port of shipment.” During the course of fulfillment, the first three lots were shipped smoothly according to the contract. However, the buyer was slow to send the vessel for the last shipment. In reply to Company As repeated urges, company B said that they were unable to book shippingspace because of shipping companys busy schedule and asked for postponing delivery for two months. Company A replied as follows:“according to the contract, you are bound to send the vessel to pick up the goods. In case of any difficulties in this aspect, we may allow you to delay the shipment on condition that you make a compensation which amounts to USD200, 000.” Finally, the bargain of compensation was settled at USD150, 000 and company B was allowed todelay vessel sending for two months. Analysis:Under FOB terms, it is the buyers obligation to arrange for delivering the goods. With reference to INCOTERMS 2000, “the buyer must contract at his own expense for the carriage of the goods from the named port of shipment.” It also provides that “the buyer must give the seller sufficient notice of the vessel name, loading point and required delivery time”. If the buyers vessel fails to arrive at the port of shipment duly, or fails to accept the goods, or stops loading ahead of the schedule specified in the contract, all the risks and loss of and damage to the goods are to be borne by the buyer as of the appointed date for delivering the goods or the expiry date of the time limit.It was learned later that during the implementation of the last shipment, the international market price of wheat dropped drastically, which greatly influenced the sales of company B who then attempted to cancel the delivery of the last shipment by hanging it up. However, company A made good use of INCOTERMS explanation for FOB terms and protected its own interests through proper means.【Case 5】Damage caused by serious quality mistakeAn export company in China concluded a deal on edible citric acid. While delivering the goods, they mistook inedible citric acid for the edible kind. Not until several days after the vessels departure did they discover the mistake. By now, the relevant documents had already been sent by the negotiating bank. To avoid severe consequences, the export company tried to withhold the documents at the post office, while, on the other hand, it urgently informed the ocean shipping agency to ask the agent in Hong Kong to intercept the goods when the ship called atthe port. Though an accident has been avoided, the export company has suffered a great loss.Analysis:It can be clearly seen in this case that the export company has severely violated the stipulations of relevant international conventions. CISG indicates that the seller must supply the goods of contracted quality; otherwise, the buyer is entitled to claim compensation or to reject the goods and cancel the contract. It is a very serious fault for the export company to have mistaken inedible citric acid for the edible kind. If the mistake had remained undiscovered, and theinedible citric acid had been misused in food, serious consequences would have occurred. While found out early, the mistake has caused great troubles in handling the matter and a consequent loss therefrom.There are two lessons to be drawn from the case:a. A sound management system should be established. Follow-ups are necessary to ensure that the goods are manufactured in accordance with the orders.b. The personnel in charge should develop strong sense of responsibility. If the personnel in charge had marked “edible” or “for industrial use”, the said accident could have been avoided.【Case 6】Fraud by quality clauseIn October 1997, a Chinese enterprise signed a sales contract with a Hong Kong trading company. The contract prescribed that the buyer should order from the seller 5000 metric tons of castiron well cover on FOB basis at unit price USD610/MT. The total amount reached USD3, 050, 000. It was also provided in the contract that the goods should be shipped bimonthly in ten equal lots, 500 metric tons each lot. The goods must be manufactured according to the sample provided by the buyer and must go through the buyers examination before acceptance.According to the quality clause, the surface of the casting should be smooth, and there m
