Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Tutorial of International Trade Law

AI-generated Abstract

The tutorial addresses the relevant aspects of international trade law, specifically focusing on contracts under CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) and FOB (Free on Board) terms. It presents a hypothetical case in which Aker Fisheries sells frozen king prawns to various buyers with the shipment facing damages due to an onboard fire. The discussion encompasses legal governing principles, obligations of sellers and buyers under CIF and FOB contracts, and potential pathways for negotiation and resolution considering damages and conforming goods under the CISG and English law.

Tutorial of International Trade Law [on 12.11.12] Answer BOTH (a) AND (b). (a) Aker Fisheries of India (Aker) sold 500 cartons of cod fish FOB Mumbai, INCOTERMS 2010, to Bram of Germany (Bram). The parties agreed that the cod would be shipped between 1 and 14 August 2010 in a frozen container to be provided by Aker. Payment was to be made by documentary bill against presentation of documents. Aker prepared and packed the fish in a refrigerated container in early July. Unfortunately, an employee of Aker negligently set the temperature at 23 degrees centigrade. On 4 August Aker notified Bram that the cod was ready for shipment and that the container would be at the port of loading for shipment on 6 August. Bram did not reply to this email. On 12 August Bram emailed Aker with the name of its nominated vessel, The Claws, and on the same day also despatched a Notice of Readiness to load with information that loading would commence at 4pm on 13 August and should take 3 hours. On the morning of 13 August, when the container was brought alongside the vessel for loading, the Master refused to accept the container which at this time was leaking some discoloured fluid and also emitted a foul smell. Meanwhile the price of cod had risen in Germany. Advise Aker. AND (b) Aker Fisheries of India (Aker) sold 500 cartons of frozen king prawns to Chin of China (Chin) which owned and operated a chain of restaurants in Beijing. Aker also sold 560 cartons of king prawns to Sauces of Hong Kong (Sauces) and another 505 cartons of king prawns to Tang (whose office is in Shanghai). The three contracts were said to be on CIF Beijing INCOTERMS 2010 terms. Aker chartered the vessel, The Queen, and loaded 1,565 cartons of frozen king prawns. Aker sent ship’s delivery orders to each buyer for its own purchase to make payment against documents. The three buyers all paid against the documents. Before Aker sent the documents to the buyers, a fire occurred on board The Queen and damaged part of the shipment of frozen king prawns. There was nothing on the delivery orders indicating this occurrence. Immediately after Aker received payment, it went into administration. The administrator wishes to take possession of the remaining 1050 cartons of king prawns when the vessel arrives. Advise the parties. Applicable Laws In order to find a law governing the contract, in exam, it will be clear which law is governing the questions. If there is no issue in the CISG, it will be on English cases and English law is the law applicable to the question Wordings 'on board' → CISG while 'ship's rail' → English law เวลาใช้ต้องใช้ให้ถูกคำ ถ้าเป็น FOB ตามด้วย port of loading ส่วน CIF ตามด้วย port of destination FOB Aker v Bram Points to focus Strict FOB case-by-case Most relevant English case to this question is Pyrene (type of FOB contract) where there is a question of FOB and the type of FOB, it needs to tell the 3 types of FOB contract the obligations of the buyer i.e. in FOB who is the person to nominate the vessel? i.e. in FOB who is the person to notice the ship? And whether the notice is in sufficient time or reasonable time? - arrange contract of carriage - nominate the vessel Affective nomination Give notice to the seller, give the notice of readiness within the agreed time or reasonable time or sufficient time (as long as it enough for the seller to deliver the goods to the port of shipment, that would be regard as a sufficient time) Provide suitable vessel The obligations of the seller i.e. provide the conforming goods to the board of vessel (Incoterms) The right of the master to reject the goods since the master has to provide the CLEAN bill of lading from UCP 600 [ไว้เรียนต่อไป] In case the buyer insist to have non-confirming goods, although, the master is the buyer agent he can claim UCP600 to reject the goods CISG: the right to cure [while there is no this rights in English law] (Right to cure is when the buyer receives the goods and the buyer informs the seller they are not conforming goods). The price that is gone up can be compensated by the difference of the price between the cost of price in the market place plus the difference of the price should be. [in this case, do not need to get into the damage] What would you advice Aker? Start negotiation with the buyer Refer to the insurance company สรุป Based in this contract, Aker can not do anything because the goods are not conforming but Aker can refresh the negotiation by asking for more additional period of time-frame CIF Aker v Three Buyers Points to focus Discuss the Julia case to tell whether it is CIF contract [should differentiate the true CIF] The nature of CIF contract In Julia case, CIF contract would be either strict CIF contract which requires bill of lading, policy insurance and commercial invoice or it could be a modify CIF contract in which a bill of lading can be replaced by delivery order, and the policy insurance can be replaced by certificate of insurance. Therefore, the contract could be CIF contract regardless whether it is the delivery order or the bill of lading. 3 Documents are need in CIF 1. B/L 2.Insurance Policy 3. Invoice The conforming documents do not affect the nature of the CIF contract. So, in this case, 'buy against the documents', it can be inferred from the case that delivery order is a conforming documents When the title of the property passes to the buyer? When the goods are ascertained, the buyers have the title of the goods Have the goods been identified in this question? The deliver order can ascertain the goods, each buyer has receive the delivery order so the act of the appropriation was the issuing of the delivery order. Because it is a bulk, bulk can be identified but each bulk each buyer share cannot be identified would that prevent the pass of the property to the buyer? Section 16 which subject to 28, which mean the bulk can be identified but because each buyer share cannot be identified, the buyer will have the common share in the property. So the goods were identified as a result of delivery order but because there were three buyers, the buyer would have common share in the property base of the section 28. CISG Art.28, the buyer will have a common share in the goods once the goods were ascertained, and this makes the property passed When the risk pass to the buyer? (distinction between the Incoterms and English law) Incoterm, when the goods are placed on board, in the English law when the goods pass on the ship’s rail. What option can the buyer do? Because it is CIF contract, the seller must provide insurance, the buyer option is to refer to the insurance company. It is important to know that regardless whether the buyer receive the physical delivery of goods or not, because the property was passed from the seller to the buyer and the risk also pass from the seller to the buyer, the buyer only can refer to the insurance company. สรุป After the goods are passed on board under CISG, the buyers have the title of the goods but the buyers can claim the damage from the insurance company. Additionally, as the property is already passed to the buyer, the seller cannot be claimed for any damages. [ลายละเอียดจะไว้สอนต่อไปเทอมหน้า] 3