支付案例分析.doc

Disputes: 1. A Chinese company exported food products to Rotterdam under L/C. The L/C issued by the buyer stated that the exporter should provide Sanitary Inspection Certificate in which the wording the food free from illness and are up to standards for eating was required. After shipment, when the exporter negotiated for payment, the negotiating bank found that the certificate presented by the exporter didnt show the wording the food products are free from illness required in the L/C. The negotiating bank deemed it a discrepancy and asked the issuing bank for opinions. However, the issuing bank didnt answer. In order to avid dishonor by the issuing bank, the exporter had to asked the inspection body to issue another certificate that was in line with the requirement of the L/C. As a result, the exporter suffered losses resulted from the 20 days delay in the settlement for payment. What lesson the exporter should learn form the case?2. Company A signed a contract with a foreign importer, exporting agricultural products. The date for signature was September 1 and the time for shipment stipulated in the contract was October, November and December. However, after the mid-September, the domestic price of the contracted product was rising to a significant extent. Company A found it would suffer great loss if it exported the goods according to the contract. Upon investigation, the reason for the rising of the price was the serious flood took place in the producing area in mid-July. Can Company A resort to force majeure clause for the avoidance of its contractual obligations? What lessons can Company A learn from this case?3. On February 2nd, an exporter signed a CFR contract with a Chinese importer which stipulated that L/C was the term for payment. The Chinese buyer issued L/C and the seller fulfilled shipment and proposed a full set of documents required. Later on, the seller issued a Letter of Indemnity, asking the shipping company to release the goods to a company in Shantou of China. On 24th of March, the Chinese buyer obtained the full set of document and went to the shipping company to take delivery of the contracted goods. However, he was told the goods had been taken by the company in Shantou on 18th of the same month. On 9th of June of the same year, the seller settled payment under the contract with the bank. After some efforts, the buyer was still unable to get the contracted goods. As a result, on 14th of March of next year, the Chinese buyer asked for arbitration in China. What award could the arbitration possibly issue for this case? 4. F, a state-owned enterprise, signed a contract to import 1,000 M/T of galvanized steel sheets from a H.K. Company. On March 1, a Shanghai bank issued the L/C for USD200,000. On March 24, container shipment was made. On March 25, the negotiating bank in H.K. Negotiated the draft along with the shipping documents. ON march 26, the opening bank received the “clean B/L” while the sealed container arrived at Shanghai. On March 30, it was found that inside the container were rusted iron drums, rather than the ordered steel sheets. The issuing bank was immediately notified of the fraud, but it could not refuse to take up the documents.On April 5th, F co. Uncovered that the commodity specified on the B/L was 50mm, inconsistent with 50cm required by the L/C. On April 14, the issuing bank requested the HK bank to exercise the right of recourse.Would there be any problem with the recourse? What were the lessons?5. A Chinese bank issued standby L/Cs totaling millions of U.S. Dollars, in favor of a U.S. Company. These were irrevocable, transferable standby L/Cs valid for one year. When questioned by the supervising agency, the bank stated that these were merely evidence of absorbed foreign investment, “It has no obligation to repay principal and interest, and bears no responsibility, economic or legal, for the funds”. Ws there any risk for the bank? 6. 我某进出口公司收到国外信用证一份，规定：最后装船日2004年6月15日，信用证有效期2004年6月30日，交单期：提单日期后15天但必须在信用证的有效期之内。后因为货源充足，该公司将货物提前出运，开船日期为2004年5月29日。6月18日，该公司将准备好的全套单证送银行议付时，遭到银行的拒绝。请问（1）为什么银行会拒绝议付？（2）该进出口公司将面临怎样风险？7. 我某外贸公司与澳大利亚某商达成一项皮手套出口合同，价格条款为CIF悉尼，支付方式为不可撤销的即期信用证，投保中国保险条款一切险。生产厂家在生产的最后一道工序时，将低了湿度标准，使得产品的湿度增大，然后将产品装入集装箱。货物到港后，检验结果表明，产品全部霉变，损失达八万美元。调查后发现，该货物出口地不异常热，进口地不异常冷，运输途中无异常，属于正常运输。问（1），保险公司对该批货物是否负责赔偿？为什么？（2）进口商是否该支付货款？为什么？8. 某公司以CIF条件进口一批货物。货物自装运港，启航不久，载货船舶因遇风暴而沉没。在这种情况下，卖方仍将包括保险单，提单，发票在内的全套单据寄给买方，要求买方支付货款。问进口方是否有义务付款？为什么？9. 我某进出口公司出口一批轻纺织品，合同规定以不可撤销的即期信用证为付款方式。买方在合同规定的开证时间内将信用证开抵通知银行，并立即转交给了我进出口公司。我进出口公司审核后发现，有关条款与合同不一致。为争取时间，尽快将信用证修改完毕，以便办理货物的装运，我方立即电告开证银行修改信用证，并要求将信用证修改书直接寄交我公司。问：（1）我方的做法可能会产生什么后果？（2）正确的信用证修改渠道是怎样的？10. 1990年8月5日,中国某进出口公司(买卖以电传方式达成协议,根据协议,卖方发出了已经签署的“售货确认书,其主要内容为:数量3万套,单价30美元,总价90万美元,价格条件是CIF(成本加保险费加运费)某港交货,并明确要求买方在同年9月5日以前,向卖方开出百分之百的、保兑的、不可撤销的、可分割的即期付款信用证。8月20日,卖方收到了经过买方签字的确认书,但买方将确认书中的CIF条件改为托盘运输条款。9月2日,卖方收到了经过买方开出的信用证,金额与确认书相符,但信用证种类与价格条款等却与确认书原有规定存重大差异。其一,信用证并非保兑:其二,确认书原定的CIF价格条件变成了托盘运输条款。据此,卖方于9月下旬电告买方拒收上述信用证,并将信用证退给了开证银行。此后,双方未能就确认书条款与信用证条款的差异达成一致,导致此合同不能履行,双方因此发生争议。问题:（1）本案中,买方修改了确认书而卖方未及时答复,合同是否成立? （2）本案中信用证是否有效?11. 1992年10月,法国某公司(卖方)与中国某公司(买方)在上海订立了买卖200台电子计算机的合同，每台CIF上海1000美元,以不可撤销的信用证支付，1992年12月马赛港交货。1992年11月15日,中国银行上海分行(开证行)根据买方指示向卖方开出了金额为20万美元的不可撤销的信用证,委托马赛的一家法国银行通知并议付此信用证。1992年12月20日，卖方将200台计