国贸案例分析题

案例分析

Unit1An export company in China

It can be clearly seen in this case that export company has severely violated the stipulations of relevant international conventions. According to CISG, 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 grave fault for the export company to have mistaken inedible critic acid for the edible kind. If the mistake had remained undiscovered, and the inedible crtic 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 several lessons to be drawn from the case: a. A sound work management system should be established. Follow-ups are necessary to ensure that the goods are manufactured in accordance with the orders. 1 b. The personnel in charge should develop strong sense of responsibility so as to avoid such accidents through supervision and urge.

Unit2 A French company imported a batch

Under CFR terms, the buyer should bear all the risks after the goods have passed the ship’s rail and been loaded on board. But should the seller be held responsible for any default before that point? In this case, it was the buyer 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 standard provided in the contract. It was this fundamental default that has caused the detainment and then the loss of the goods. Therefore, while the risks had been transferred to the buyer, the 4 seller’s default returned the risks to the seller. Of course, under CFR contract, when the seller’s default is n ot 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.

Unit4 Under a documentary

An Insurance Policy is a legal document signed by prominent insurance companies. T ypes of Insurance Cover must be stipulated by the Credit and should be effective throughout the procedure of transportation. The insurance documents must be issued and signed by insurance companies or underwriters or their agents. Cover notes issued by brokers will not be accepted, unless specifically authorized in the credit. Is an insurance certificate issued on a broker’s leterhead but signed by agent(s) of named insurance company acceptable u nder Sub-Article 34(a) of UCP500? This question was also raised during the tenor of the ICC Group of Experts. According to Sub-Article 34(a), insurance documents must indicate on their face to be issued and signed by insurance companies, underwriters or their agents. The insurance document to which this query is related would appear to be signed by the brokers as agents of the named insurance company, ABC Ltd., as leading insurer also for and on behalf of the co-insurers, and imply their joint liability. Therefore, the insurance certificate presented is acceptable.

Unit7 On April 9 2007

D/P(Documents against Payment) and D/A(Documents against Acceptance) are two types of collection. The latter is more risky than the former. Under D/A, the importer can obtain transport documents by which he can take delivery of the goods. If the importer fails to make payment at maturity, the exporter will lose both the goods and the money. In this case, the exporter should have realized the risk of changing D/P into D/A. according to UCR522, once the principal has given clear instructions, banks assume no responsibility for any consequence thus incurred. All is to be borne by the principal himself. From this case, we can draw the following lessons: 1. Collection is based on commercial credit. That is to say, the bank does not assume primary liability to make payment, and whether the principal can obtain the payment or not depends on the credibility. Therefore, only when doing business with an importer of goods reputation can the exporter choose payment by D/A. 2. Under collection, the transport documents should not be made out to order of the importer, but should be made out to order and blank endorsed so as to avoid the importer’s picking up the goods directly and facilitate th e bank’s negotiation of the transport documents. 3. D/P is always a better choice than D/A. For substantial deals, a combination of D/P and L/C is recommended.

Unit10 Company B in singapore

According to UCP500 Article 9. d. I, “an irrevocable credit can n either be amended nor cancelled without the agreement of the issuing bank, the confirming bank, if any, and the beneficiary.” Part III of the same article says that “the terms of the original credit will remain in force for the beneficiary until the benficiary communiated his acceptance of the amendment to the bank that advised such amendment”. Therefore, it was unquestionable for the exporter to refuse the amendment and ship the goods according to the original credit terms. Although reproachless in the light of L/C settlement operations, the exporter should have communicated his difficulties and reasons of the nonacceptance to the importer to avoid misunderstanding. On this account, it was inadvisable for the exporter to express his opinions in time.

Unit11 S bank in Tabriz

The importer failed to give a tenable reason for its refusal to pay. The word “about” before the quantity fo goods definitely indicated that the beneficiary was allowed, according to UCP, to make a difference of 10% either way in the amounts actually shipped. The beneficiary did nothing blamable. The L/C itself bore a ambiguous clause. If the importer does not allow partial shipment at all, they should not add the word “about” to the quantity caluse.