国贸实务-案例分析-Case-Studies.doc

Case Studies of International TradeCourse: Practice of International Trade Adviser: Gao YanfengGrade&Class: Grade 2012 Class 5Name: Li YuanbaoStudent ID: 120440502Date: 20th December, 2014Case Studies of International Trade Name: Li Yuanbao Student ID: 120440502Case 1 Quality of GoodsA Chinese exporter signed a sales contract with a European company to export five metric tons of Chinese dates. Both the contract and the L/C specified that the dates were of Grade 3. When preparing goods for shipment, the seller found that Grade 3 Chinese dates were out of stock. In order to make delivery in time, the seller shipped the Grade 2 Chinese dates to the buyer and indicated in the commercial invoice that the Grade 2 Chinese dates are priced as per Grade 3. Do you think it is reasonable for the exporter to do so? What kind of risk is there for the seller?译文：一家中国出口商与一家欧洲出口商签订了一个合同，卖方向买方出口5公吨的红枣。合同与信用证上明确标注，卖方所提供的是三等的红枣。当准备货物装运时，卖方发现三等红枣的仓储存货不足。为了使货物按时到达，卖方将二等红枣配送到给买方，并在商务发票上注明二等红枣的价格与三等红枣一致。你认为出口方这么做是否合理。卖方这样做有何风险？Analysis on Case 1:According to UCP500, Article 37, the description of goods in the commercial invoices must correspond with the description in the Credit. What the seller did is inconsistent with the stipulation of UCP. The buyer is entitled to reject the payment and the goods on the ground that the goods delivered are not what the contract and L/C require.If the market changes or the price falls down, the buyer may take this excuse for rejecting the goods or claiming compensation from the seller, thought the goods delivered are better than those stipulated in the contract. Case 2 Quantity of GoodsA Chinese export company exported 1 000 electric fans to a country in the Middle East. Both the contract and L/C stipulated that partial shipment was not allowed. When the fans were transported to the port for shipment, it was found that 40 fans were damaged and it was impossible to replace the defective fans because of the time for the shipment. The consignor thought that according to UCP500 5% more or less was allowed if the amount didnt exceed the L/C amount and under-delivering 40 fans was still within 5%. In the end, 960 fans were delivered to the importer. When the seller surrendered the shipping documents to the bank for the negotiation of payment, he was rejected by the bank. Was it reasonable for the bank to do so?译文：一家中国出口公司向位于中东的一个国家出口1000 台电风扇。合同与信用证上都规定了不允许分批运装。当这批风扇被运送到港口进行装运的时候，发现有40台电风扇有损坏，但由于装运的时间限制，所以无法对残次的风扇进行更换。发货方认为，根据UCP 500 5%溢短装条款，如果货物（电风扇）的数量不超过信用证上的数量或者少于40台以内的数量，都是在5%的范围内的。最终，960台风扇被运送到了进口方。当卖方向银行提交船运文件以商讨款项支付时，银行拒绝了这一请求。银行这么做合理吗？Analysis on Case 2:According to UCP500, Article 39, unless a Credit stipulates that the quantity of the goods specified must not be exceeded or reduced, a tolerance of 5% more or 5% less will be permissible, always provided that the amount of the drawings does not exceed the amount of the Credit. This tolerance does not apply when the Credit stipulates the quantity in terms of a stated number of packing units or individual items. It can be seen that the quantity of fans is calculated by number. The seller is not allowed to under-deliver 40 fans. Instead, he must deliver the full quantity stipulated in the L/C. So the bank was reasonable to reject the negotiation. Case 3 Packing of CommodityA Chinese importer purchased some flammable liquid chemical raw material from a French exporter. When the shipment arrived at the destination, it was found that there was a slight leakage caused by the defect in a few packages. However, the Chinese importer failed to take any measures to save the loss and prevent the damage from expanding. As a result, the leakage worsened after the warehousing of the goods and led to a self-ignited fire. Afterwards, the Chinese importer lodged a claim against the French exporter for full compensation of the total loss, but was refused.译文：一家中国进口商从法国出口商处进口了一些易燃的化学原材料液体。货物到港的时候，买方发现由于一些货物的包装有瑕疵，货物出现了轻微的泄露。然而中国进口方未能采取措施减少损失，也并未采取措施来防止损害的扩大。结果货物进入仓储仓库后，液体泄漏加剧从而导致了自燃火灾。事后中国进口商向法国出口商针对所有的损失提出了全部赔偿的索赔要求，但是被法国方拒绝。Analysis on Case 3:In view of the situation in this case, the Chinese importer could not make a claim for the total loss. While receiving the goods, the importer had already taken possession of the goods. Besides, with the awareness of the leakage and the knowledge about the danger of the inflammability of the goods, the importer should have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the expansion of the damage. Under such circumstances, it was the importers responsibility to protect the goods and prevent the damage from expanding. Since the goods self-ignition had resulted from the importers failure to fulfill such responsibility, the exporter should not be responsible for the expansion of the damage. As per CISG Article 86 (1), “If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. He is entitled to retain them until he has been reimbursed his reasonable expenses by the seller.”So, the importer was only entitled to claim the compensation for the damage caused by the slight leakage induced by the deficiency of the few packages, rather than claim the compensation for the damage expanded owing to the importers failure to take precautions. Therefore, the French exporter was justified in rejecting the claim made by the Chinese importer for the total loss. Case 4 International Trade TermsA Chinese exporter signed a CFR contract with an importer in America on canned meat for an amount of US$ 50, 000, with payment by D/P at sight. On the morning of May 5, 2006, the goods were all loaded onto the named vessel. The Chinese salesperson in charge of this contract was so busy that he forgot to send the buyer the shipping advice until the next morning. Unexpectedly, when the American importer went to the local insurance company to insure the goods, the insurance company had already learned that the ship suffered a wreck on May 6 and refused to insure the shipment. The American importer immediately sent a fax to the Chinese exporter reading as follows: “Owing to your delayed shipping advice, we are unable to insure the goods. Since 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 US$ 50, 000”. Soon all the shipping documents sent through the collecting bank were returned to the Chinese exporter, for the reason that the importer refused to take up the shipping documents. Who should be responsible for the loss and why?译文：一家中国出口商与一家美国进口商签订了一份按CFR成交的合同，该合同的货物为价值5万美元的肉罐头，付款方式为即期付款交单。2006年5月5日的早晨，货物已经全部被装载到指定的货船上。中方负责该笔订单的人员繁忙中未能将发货通知书及时发给买方，直到第二天早晨才将发货通知书发出。令人意想不到的是，当美国进口方去当地的保险公司为货物投保时，保险公司已得知该艘货船已经在5月6号遭受了沉船事故，因此拒绝对该批货物承保。美国进口方立即向中方发送了传真，传真内容如下：“由于你方未能及时发送发货通知书，我方无法为本批货物投保。现在货船由于沉船而损毁，货物损失应由你方负责。并且你方应当补偿我方的利润与开支损失，共计5万美元。”不久后，所有的船运单据经过代收银行返回到中国的出口商手里，因为上述的原因，中方拒绝了该付款赎单。谁该为损失负责？为什么？Analysis on Case 4:Under CFR term, all the risks duties and expenses after goods passing ships rail are normally borne by the buyer. It is provided that the seller must also give the buyer sufficient notice that the goods have been delivered in order to allow the buyer to take measures which are normally necessary to enable him to take the goods. Under this term, the seller must give the shipping notice in a timely manner so as to allow sufficient time for the buyer to effect insurance of the goods. In this case, it was the sellers failure to send the “sufficient notice” that led to his loss of both goods and money. On the other hand, if the seller 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 while both the buyer and the insurance company were ignorant of the accident. Thus it can be seen how important 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.When CFR terms or FOB terms are used in combination with payment by collection, the seller 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 5 International Cargo TransportA Chinese company (Company A) signed a sales contract with a Brazilian company (Company C). Company A entrusted a shipping company (Company B) to ship the 10 000 sacks of coffee beans from Shanghai Port to a port in Brazil. Company B issued a clean B/L evidencing that each sack weights 60 kgs in apparent good condition. When the goods arrived at the destination, Company C found that the weight of 600 sacks of goods was 25% less in quantity than contracted and the packages were loosened. Therefore, Company C sued Company B for the quantity discrepancy between the delivered goods and the descriptions on the B/L, and asked Company B to compensate for the loss. Company B later provided evidence to prove that the loosened packages and the shortweight had existed when the goods were loaded on board, and the company issued the clean B/L because of failure in checking every package. Since the discrepancy in delivered quantity was not caused by Company B，the company should not compensate for the loss. Investigation also confirmed that the shortweight of 600 sacks was not caused by the carrier but by the shipper, Company A.Which party should compensate Company C? Give reasons to support your answer.译文: 一家中国公司（A公司）与一家巴西公司（C公司）签订了一份销售合同。A公司委托船运公司（B公司）从上海港口运送1万袋咖啡豆到巴西的某一个港口。B公司签署了清洁提单，表明每袋咖啡豆重量为60千克，货物外表状况良好。当货物抵达目的地时，C公司发现货物中有600袋咖啡豆的重量比合同中规定的重量少了25%，而且货物的包装也是松散的。因此，C公司以发货数量与信用证上货物数量不符为由起诉B公司，并要求B公司赔偿损失。B公司随后提供了相关的证据来证明包装松散与重量不足的现象在货物装运的时候已经存在，之所以签订清洁提单是因为公司无法检查每一个包装。既然货物数量差异不是由B公司造成的，那B公司就不需要赔偿损失。调查也确认了600袋咖啡豆的重量不足并非由货运公司造成，而是由出口方A公司造成的。哪一方应想C公司赔偿？给出依据来论证你的观点Analysis on Case 5:Company B should compensate Company C, because the consignee only relies on the B/L to protect his right in transportation.Once the bill of lading is transferred to a third party, the carrier cannot use the discrepancy in content on the B/L and the actual condition as an excuse to defend a third party B/L holder. If the carrier issues a clean B/L, the carrier is responsible for delivering the described goods to the consignee. In this case, Company B should compensate Company C before making claims against Company A for payment. Case 6 Cargo Transport InsuranceA Chinese company exported 600 cases of tableware on CIF basis. The export