Urgent need for analysis of three international trade practice cases

1.This will result in the buyer refusing to accept the entire shipment or demanding the return of the lake blue bicycle and compensation for the loss.

2.No. Because the risk borne by the buyer and seller under FOB terminology is bounded by the side of the ship at the port of shipment, in this case, the rupture of the outer packaging was caused by the cargo falling on the deck due to a loose hook during loading, resulting in the cargo being soaked in water.

In other words, the damage to the goods is after crossing the ship's side and is therefore at the buyer's risk. In addition, a failure to secure the hook may be the responsibility of the ship owner or the port, so the importer should seek it from the ship owner or the port.

Repay. 3.Indonesia Company A should be held liable.

Because under CFR terms, the seller should notify the buyer without delay after the shipment that the goods have been loaded on the vessel so that the buyer can purchase freight insurance. If the seller fails to send a notice of shipment to the buyer in a timely manner, resulting in the buyer failing to insure the ship, the seller shall bear all the losses arising therefrom.

1 The plant's practices may result in the buyer rejecting the entire shipment.

2 No, you can't. Under FOB conditions, the risk is transferred from the seller to the buyer from the moment the goods cross the ship's side. The responsibility for the risk rests with the buyer.

3 Unreasonable. The seller is responsible.

1 The seller shall issue a notice of shipment in a timely manner When the transaction is concluded according to CFR conditions, the seller shall arrange the transportation and the buyer shall handle the freight insurance. If the seller does not send a shipment notice in time, the buyer will not be able to apply for cargo insurance in time, and may even miss the cargo insurance. Therefore, the seller must send a notice of shipment to the buyer in time after loading the ship, otherwise, the seller should bear the risk and loss of the goods in transit.

Categories: Business Banking >>**.

Problem description: There is a CIF contract, ** a batch of bulk agricultural products, shipped from a port in Asia to London. The contract provided that "the goods shall be delivered on CIF terms and payment shall be made against the documents or bills of lading." "When the goods arrived, the seller submitted only a bill of lading, but no insurance policy, and the buyer refused to pay for the goods on the grounds that the seller had not submitted an insurance policy.

Net export foreign exchange income = 100,000 * [1 - (1 + 10%) * 1% + = 95,350 US dollars.

Actual total cost of exports = 702,000 * (1 + 5%) - 702,000 (1 + 17%) * 9%.

683,100 yuan.

Conversion cost = actual export cost Net foreign exchange income.

Profit and loss = net foreign exchange income * exchange rate - actual total cost of exports.

108305 yuan.

Profit and loss ratio = profit and loss amount Actual total cost of export * 100%.

You have to do the math to know.

1) Claims can be made.

2) Unable to receive payment.

The reason is as follows: according to the International Chamber of Commerce's Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, "the name of the specification of the goods expressed in the commercial invoice must be consistent with the specification of the letter of credit." "It can be seen that the provisions on the invoice for the name and specifications of the goods are very important.

In this case, although the grade of the goods delivered by our company is higher than the original and unchanged, in the case of the goods market, the buyer will often refuse to pay the ransom on the grounds that it does not conform to the provisions of the letter of credit. And the bank will only pay if the documents match the same.

Through the analysis of this case, students have a clear understanding and knowledge of documentary credit, know how to correctly use L/C in the payment settlement of international business, and also know that the implementation of contract terms is quite strict and important.

Content from user: Tu Xiaorong.

Chapter 1 Commodity Name, Quality, Quantity and Packaging.

Case 1-11 Improper formulation of quality clauses.

During the 1988 Guangzhou Autumn Fair, our company signed a contract with Japan's D Industry Co., Ltd. to export cashmere sweaters. According to the terms of the contract, our company sold a batch of cashmere sweaters to Japan D Industry Co., Ltd. at the cost of CFR Yokohama at 10 US dollars per piece, with a quantity of 10 000 pieces and a cashmere content of 100%; The payment terms are L/C at sight, and the invoice, bill of lading and quality inspection certificate issued by the seller are used as the basis for payment. The buyer has the right to re-inspect the goods after they arrive at the port of destination, and the inspection fee shall be borne by the buyer.

The shipment was shipped on 2 April 1989 and arrived at the port of Yokohama on 6 April. According to the provisions of the contract, the Japanese side asked a Japanese inspection agency to open the box for inspection. After inspection, the cashmere content was 70%, so the Japanese side raised an objection to our company on the grounds that the content of the goods did not meet the requirements.

Our company did not accept the objection of the Japanese side, on the grounds that the transaction was concluded in person by the buyer at the Canton Fair, and was signed with the consent of the buyer, and the actual delivery was consistent with the sample, so it should be considered that the quality of the goods has met the agreement between the two parties.

In September 1989, when the dispute could not be resolved through negotiation, the Japanese side submitted a letter to the China International Economic Arbitration Commission for arbitration. In the application for arbitration, it claimed compensation of US$20,000 for damages and US$10,000 for notary fees, totaling US$10,000.

Finally, the China International Economic Arbitration Commission coordinated and put forward a proposal to solve the problem. In the case of mutual understanding between the two parties, our company said that it was mishandled in the quality representation, and there was indeed something wrong with the contract, but there was no problem with the quality of the goods; The seller emphasized that the transaction was made in person at the Canton Fair and signed with the consent of the buyer, and the quality of the actual delivery was the same.

Agree with the opinion from upstairs.

The seller can recover the payment in time, because the characteristic of LC is that it is only for the documents, not for the goods. As long as the documents are complete, the bank must pay, regardless of whether the buyer agrees to pay or not. In fact, when opening a letter of credit, the bank will require the buyer to deposit the money in the bank in advance, in order to avoid the risk of the buyer refusing to pay after the bank makes the payment.

Since the terms of the transaction are CIF, the seller should purchase insurance before shipment. If the seller does fulfill its obligations and purchase insurance, then it is possible to claim compensation from the insurance company. If the seller does not take out insurance, then it is a breach of contract and the buyer should be compensated for the loss.

Cannot agree with the buyer's approach. The payment must be negotiated with the bank as originally planned, as LC has a time limit. As long as the documents are in order, the bank must give the money. That's where LC comes in, not to the documents, not to the goods. The buyer settles the claim with the insurance company.