国际商法案例

Chapter10Case11.Seller,whoseplaceofbusinessisinStateA,andBuyer,whoseplaceofbusinessisinStateB,enterintoacontractthatstipulatesthattheCISGapplies.NeitherStateAnorStateBisacontractingstate.Doestheconventionapply?译文：营业地在A国的卖方和营业地在B国的买方签订了一份规定《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》适用的合同。A国和B国都不是公约的缔约国。公约能适用吗？分析：AccordingtoCISGPartⅠ（Article1),CISGappliestocontractfortheinternationalsaleofgoods-thatis,thebuyerandthesellermusthavetheirplacesofbusinessindifferentstates.Inaddition,eitherbothofthestatesmustbecontractingpartiestotheconventionortherulesofprivateinternationallawmustleadtotheapplicationofthelawofacontractingstate.Inthissituation,therulesofprivateinternationallawstipulatesthatthecontractappliestothelawofacontractingstate.Asaresult,theconventionapplies.适用。根据CISG第一部分第一章第一条第一款，公约适用于国际货物买卖合同，即买方和卖方必须在不同的国家拥有营业地，另外，两国均属公约的缔约国或国际私法规则必须导致适用某一缔约国法律。所以，即使A国和B国都不是公约的缔约国，但根据国际私法规则适用某一缔约国法律，公约仍可能适用。Thiswoulddependupontheprivateinternationallawrulesofthestatewhereasuitisbroughttoenforcethecontract.CISGArticle1(2).Ifthelocalrulesallowthepartiestoadoptthelawsofaforeignjurisdictionbyagreement,thentheUnitedNationsConventionwouldapply.Chapter10Case2徐夏童RetailerinStateAdecidestogointothecatalogsalesbusinessinStateB.BothcountriesarepartiestotheCISG.RetailerpurchasesamailinglistfromAceCreditCardCompany.Thelisthasthenamesandaddressesof500,000personsowningAcecreditcardsinStateB,andRetailerusesthistopreparemailinglabels.JohnQ.PublicreceivesacatalogaddressedtohimpersonallyfromRetailer.Thecatalogdescribesvarioustypesofwidgetsandgivespricesforeachone.Hastheretailermadeanoffertosellthewidgets?IfJohnaccepts,willtherebeabindingcontractundertheCISG?A国的某零售商决定在B国开展目录销售业务。A，B两国都是《国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国。零售商从Ace信用卡公司购买邮件列表。该列表包含在州B中拥有Ace信用卡的500,000人的姓名和地址，零售商使用此信息来准备邮寄标签。JohnQ.Public收到了一份来自零售商的目录。该目录描述了各种类型的小部件，并为每个小部件提供价格。零售商是否出售这些小部件是否为发出了要约？如果约翰接受，根据《国际货物销售合同公约》的规定，约翰先生和零售公司是否订立了具有约束力的合同呢？解析：A国和B国均为《CISG》缔约国，因此该案适用《CISG》。根据《CISG》第14条“向一个或一个以上的人提出的订立合同的建议，如果十分确定并且表明发价人在得到接受时承受约束的意旨，即构成发价。一个建议如果写明货物并且明示或暗示地规定数量和价格或规定如何确定数量和价格，即为十分确定。非向一个或一个以上特定的人提出的建议，仅应视为邀请做出发价，除非提出建议的人明确地表示相反的意向。”一项订立合同的建议若要构成要约，它必须是向一个或一个以上的特定人发出的建议。向公众发布的建立通常被认为只是谈判的邀请。因此零售商出售这些小部件并非要约，而是谈判邀请。零售商的行为构不成发出要约，因此约翰接受，此行为也不能视为双方订立了具有约束力的合同。分析：No.UnderArticle11,anoffermustbe“addressedtospecificpersons.”Whilethecataloguewasaddressedtoaspecificperson,mailorderretailersordinarilyintendfortheircataloguestohaveaswideacirculationaspossible,andtheywouldbehappytohavethempassedontoothers.Thephrase“offersaddressedtospecificpersons”actuallymeans“offersrestrictedtotheparticularaddressees.”要约是向特定人发出的，表明要约人将要按一定的价格买卖特定货物意图的建议。而本案中A国零售商的邮件不是有效的要约，因为其未向特定人发出，因此A国零售商的邮件是要约邀请。即使John接受要约邀请也无法达成有效的合同。No.UnderArticle11,anoffermustbe“addressedtospecificpersons.”Whilethecataloguewasaddressedtoaspecificperson,mailorderretailersordinarilyintendfortheircataloguestohaveaswideacirculationaspossible,andtheywouldbehappytohavethempassedontoothers.Thephrase“offersaddressedtospecificpersons”actuallymeans“offersrestrictedtotheparticularaddressees.”Chapter10Case3金灵OnJanuary1,SellersentalettertoBuyerofferingtoselltoBuyer5,000widgetsfor$25apiece.Theletteralsostaded:"ThisofferisbindingandirrevocableuntilFebruary1."OnJanuary5,priortoBuyer'sreceiptoftheletter,SellercalledBuyeronthetelephoneandleftthefollowingmessageontheansweringmachineatBuyer'splaceofbusiness:"IgnoreofmyletterofJanuary1.Ihavedecidedtowithdrawtheoffercontainedinit."OnJanuary7,afterlisteningtoheransweringmachineandreadingtheletterthatarrivedthatsameday,BuyersentSellerthefollowingtelegram:"IacceptyourofferinJanuary1."IsthereacontractundertheCISG?1月1日，卖方致函买方，向买方出售5,000件小部件，每件25美元。这封信还表示：“直至2月1日,此优惠都具有约束力且不可撤销，。”1月5日，在买方收到信件之前，卖方通过电话联系买方，并在买方营业地点的应答机上留下以下信息：“忽略我1月1日的来信。我已经决定撤回此次要约。”1月7日，在听完电话答录机并阅读当天到达的信后，买方向卖方发送了以下电报：“我方接受你方于1月1日的要约。”根据“国际货物销售合同公约”是否构成合同关系？Answer:Thecontractisn'tconcludedbecausetheoffersenthasbeenwithdrawn.Analysis:Foraproposaltobeanoffer,itmustbeaddressedto"oneormorespecificpersons".Soaccordingtothiscase,itisanoffer.Butanofferbecomeseffectiveonlyafteritreachestheofferee.Thus,offers---includingoffersthatpromisethattheyareirrevocable---canbewithdrawnbeforetheyreachtheofferee.Inthiscase,OnJanuary5,priortoBuyer'sreceiptoftheletter,SellercalledBuyeronthetelephoneandleftthefollowingmessageontheansweringmachineatBuyer'splaceofbusiness:"IgnoreofmyletterofJanuary1.Ihavedecidedtowithdrawtheoffercontainedinit."Sothecontractisn'tconcludedbecausetheoffersenthasbeenwithdrawn.Thewithdrawalwaseffective.CISGArticle15(2)statesthatfirmoffersmaybewithdrawnifthewithdrawalreachestheofferee“beforeoratthesametime”astheoffer.Herethewithdrawalreachedtheoffereebeforetheoffer,sincetherecordedwithdrawalmessagewasdeliveredtoBuyer’splaceofbusinesspriortoBuyer’sreceiptoftheoffer.SeeArticle24.Chapter10Case4单思琪OnDecember1,SellersentBuyeranoffertosell5,000widgetstoBuyerfor25apiece.Theofferstated:"TheofferwillremainopenuntilDecember31."OnDecember10,Buyeranswered:"thepriceistoohigh;Idon'tacceptyouroffer."Then,onDecember15,Buyerchangedhismindandsentatelegramstating:"IacceptyourDecember1offerafterall."Sellerreplied:"Youracceptanceistoolate,sinceyoualreadyrejectedtheoffer."Inreturn,Buyeranswered:"Theacceptanceisgood,youpromisedtokeepyourofferopenuntilDecember31."IsthereacontractundertheCISG?12月1号，一买方向买方发价，计划以25美元每个售卖5000件工具给买方。报价中说，这份报价一直到12月31号之前都有效。12月10日，买方回复说报价太高，不接受发价。之后，在12月15日时买方改变了主意，发电报成同意接受12月1号的发价。但是卖方回复称买方接受发价太晚了，因为此前买方已经拒绝了此项发价。买方回复说，接受发价仍然是有效的，因为卖方承诺在12月31日之前发价都是有效的。根据CISG,合同是否构成呢？解析:根据CISG,合同已经构成1.根据GISG第19条第2条规定，对发价表示接受但载有添加或不同条件的答复，如所载内容或不同条件在实质上并不变更该发价的条件，除发价人在不过分迟延的时间内以口头或书面通知反对其间的差异外，则构成接受。2.根据案情，买方在规定的时间内(12月31日以前）提出接受发价，12月10日其对于发价的反对并不对12月15日其对于发价的接受造成实质性的影响，所以其对于发价的接受有效。3.根据CISG第23条，合同于按照本公约的规定对发价的接受生效时订立，所以此案中合同订立。分析：Theofferwasinvalidatedbythebuyer'srefusalandthecontractwasnotestablished.AccordingtotheCISGArticle17,itclearlystatesthat“anoffer,evenifitisirrevocable,isterminatedwhenarejectionreachestheofferor.”BecausethesellermadeanoffertothebuyeronDecember1.Althoughtheofferwasanofferwithanacceptancedeadline,thebuyerrejectedtheofferonDecember10andthenoticeofrejectionreachedtheofferor.Therefore,theoffermadebytheselleronDecember1wasinvalid.Therefore,thebuyermadeanotheracceptanceonDecember15.Sincetheofferwasinvalid,theacceptancewasinvalidandthecontractwasnotestablished.However,wecanregardthebuyer'sbehaviorasanewoffer.Atthistime,thesellerdecideswhetherthecontractisestablishedornot.Thecontractwasnotestablishedbecausethesellerdidnotagreewiththebuyer'snewoffer.Thatmeansthereisn’tacontractundertheCISG.要约因买方拒绝而失效，合同不成立。根据《国际货物销售合同公约》第17条，该条明确规定，“要约，即使是不可撤销的，在拒绝送达要约人时终止。”因为卖方于12月1日向买方发出要约，虽然该要约属于附有承诺期限的要约，但买方在12月10日拒绝了要约，且该拒绝要约通知已到达要约人，因此卖方于12月1日发出的要约失效，故买方于12月15日再次发出承诺的行为，因要约已失效，所以承诺无效，合同不成立。但我们可以视买方该行为为新的要约，此时，卖方决定着合同的成立与否。又因为卖方不同意买方的新要约，故合同不成立。即据联合国《国际货物销售合同公约》，买卖双方之间没有建立合同关系。CISGArticle17clearlystatesthat“anoffer,evenifitisirrevocable,isterminatedwhenarejectionreachestheofferor.”BecausetherejectionreachedtheSellerbeforetheacceptance,theofferisrejected.Chapter10Case5李瑾IsSilenceAcceptanceUndertheCISG?BuyerreceivedaletterinhermailonJanuary1offeringtosellBuyer5,000widgetsfor$20apiece.Seller’sletterclosedwiththefollowingstatement:“IknowthatthisofferissoattractivethatIwillassumethatyouacceptitunlessIhearotherwisebyJanuary31.”Buyerdidnotreply.SellershippedthewidgetsonFebruary.WhatareBuyer’sresponsibilitiesundertheCISG?国际货物买卖合同下，缄默是否构成接受？1月1日，买家收到卖家的邮件，卖家同意以每件20美元的价格卖给买家5,000货物。卖家信件结尾写道“我知道这份报价很有吸引力，故假定你方同意，如有异议，请1月31日前告知。”买方未回复。卖方于2月1日发货。国际货物买卖合同下买方应负什么责任？分析:Buyerneeddonothing.AccordingtoCISG,theArticle18(2)statedthat“Astatementmadebyorotherconductoftheoffereeindicatingassenttoanacceptance.Silenceorinactivitydoesnotinitselfamounttoacceptance.”Hence,thesilenceofBuyerdoesn’tmeanacceptance.Buyertakesnoresponsibilitytothewidgets.买家无需承担责任。题目规定按照联合国《国际货物销售合同公约》解读该行为，而该公约第十八条（1）表明：“被发价人声明或做出其他行为表示同意一项发价，即是接受，缄默或不行动本身不等于接受。”可知，买方的不回复或缄默行为不等于接受，因此买家不必接收货物或承担任何责任。Buyerneeddonothing.UnderCISGArticle18,anofferorcannotmakesilenceorinactivitygroundsforacceptanceofhisoffer.Onlyiftheoffereehadagreedinadvancethathissilenceorinactivitywouldconstituteacceptancewouldtherebeacontractinthissituation.Chapter10Case6王志刚ModificationofContractandRelianceUndertheCISGSellerandBuyerenteredintoawrittencontractforthemanufacturebySellerof10000widgetsofadesignspecifiedbyBuyerandsetoutinthecontract.Thecontractalsoprovided:”thiscontractmayonlybemodifiedinawritingsignedbybothparties.”BeforeSellerbeganworkonthewidgets,BuyerandSelleragreedbytelephonetoachangeinthespecificationsfor2500ofthewidgets.Sellerthenproducedanddeliveredthe2500widgetsasspecified.Buyerrefusedtoacceptthembecausetheydidnotconformtothespecificationsintheoriginalcontract.AssumingtheCISGapplies,whobreached?卖方和买方签订了一份书面合同，由卖方制造10000件由买方指定并在合同中规定的设计小部件。合同还规定：“本合同只能以双方签署的书面形式进行修改。”在卖方开始生产小部件之前，买方和卖方通过电话同意更改2500个小部件的规格。然后，卖方按照规定生产并交付了2500个小部件。买方拒绝接受，因为它们不符合原始合同中的规格。假设“销售公约”适用，谁违约了？Analysis:Buyer.Article29(2)saysthat“acontractinwritingwhichcontainsaprovisionrequiringanymodificationorterminationbyagreementtobeinwritingmaynotbeotherwisemodifiedorterminatedbyagreement.”Itgoesontoadd,however,that“apartymaybeprecludedbyhisconductfromassertingsuchaprovisiontotheextentthattheotherpartyhasreliedonthatconduct.”Here,clearly,SellerreliedonBuyer’sconduct.分析：在此案例中，我认为是买方违反了规定。CISG中第二十九条第一条款规定，合同只需双方当事人协议就可更改或终止。第二条款规定任何更改或根据协议终止必须以书面做出的书面合同，不得以任何其他方式更改或根据协议终止。但是，一方当事人的行为如经另一方当事人寄以信赖就不得坚持此项规定。在此案例中，买方与卖方通过电话联系同意了更改2500件小部件的生产规格，买方此行为明显是在向卖方寄以信赖，卖方也是按照规定生产并交付了货物，尽管原始合同规定必须通过双方签署的书面文件进行条件的修改，但是在买方已寄以信赖的情况下，此项规定不得继续坚持，买方的拒收行为明显不符合规定。Chapter10Case7刘燕妮BuyerandSellerenteredintoacontractgovernedbytheCISGforSellertodeliverasophisticatedcomputertoBuyerbyJanuary1.Sellerwaslateindeliveringthemachine,soBuyerwiredSelleronJanuary2:“Anxioustotakedeliveryofthecomputer.HopethatitarrivesbyFebruary1.”SellerdeliversthecomputeronFebruary5,butBuyerrefusestoacceptitanddeclaresthatthecontractisavoidedbecauseSellerfailedtohandoverthecomputerbeforetheFebruary1datespecifiedintheFebruary2telegram.BothBuyerandSelleragreethattherehasnotbeenafundamentalbreach.IsBuyerabletoavoidthecontractunderthesecircumstances?买方和卖方达成了一个受联合国国际货物销售合同公约所约束的合同，合同的内容是，卖方要在1月1日之前将一台精密的电脑交付给买方。由于卖方未能按期交货，买方在1月2日发电报给卖方：“我们急于收到这台电脑，希望在2月1日之前能收到它。”卖方最终在2月5日交付了这台电脑，但是买方拒绝签收，并表示因为卖方没能按照1月2日电报所要求的那样，在2月1日之前交付电脑，该合同已经失效了。买卖双方都认为这不算根本违约。在这些情况下，买方能够使该合同无效吗？Analysis:Yes,theBuyerisabletoavoidthecontract.UnderCISG,aBuyermayavoidacontractifeither(1)theSellercommitsafundamentalbreachor(2)theBuyergivestheSelleraNachfristnoticeandtheSellerrejectsitordoesnotperformwithintheperioditspecifies.ABuyer’sNachfristnoticeisthefixingof“anadditionalperiodoftimeofreasonablelengthforperformancebytheSellerofhisobligations.Theperiodmustbedefinite,andtheobligationtoperformwithinthatperiodmustbeclear.OncetheNachfristperiodhasrun,oroncethefundamentalbreachbecomesclear,theBuyerhasareasonabletimeinwhichtoavoidthecontract.Inthiscase,althoughthereisnofundamentalbreach,Sellerdidn’tdeliverthecomputerontimeascontracted.AfterBuyergavenoticetoSellerandaskedSellertodeliverthecomputerbyFebruary1,SellerfailedtodeliveritbyFebruary1butonFebruary5,laterthantherequireddate.买方可以使该合同无效。在联合国国际货物销售合同公约下，买方可以在以下情况使合同无效化：（1）卖方做出根本违约；（2）买方向卖方发出宽限期通知，而卖方拒绝接受或者没有在规定期限内完成要求。买方的宽限期通知是一种解决办法，它给出一个额外的、长度合理的时间期限让卖方完成义务。这个期限必须是给定的，并且在期限内完成的义务也必须是清晰的。一旦宽限期开始或者根本违约发生，买方有合理的时间来使合同无效化。在这个案例中，即使不存在根本违约，卖方没有依据合同按时交货。在买方向卖方发出通知并要求卖方在2月1日之前交付电脑后，卖方没能如期交货，而是晚于要求的日期，在2月5日交货。No.ThenoticeBuyergaveSellerdoesnotamounttoanArticle47Nachfristnotice,becauseitdidnotsetafixeddatenordemandfinalperformancebythatdate.Thewireshouldhavesaidsomethingsuchas“ThelastdateonwhichBuyerwillacceptdeliveryisFebruary1.”Chapter10case8彭钦云RiskofLossUndertheCISGDealersintheUnitedStatesownedacargoof10,000barrelsofoilthathasbeenshippedfromMexicoonJanuary1forarrivalintheUnitedStatesonFebruary1.OnJanuary15，DealerinformedBuyerthattheoilwasenrouteandtheyconcludedacontract.Onarrival,inspectionshowedthattheoilhadbeencontaminatedbyseawateratsomeindeterminatetimeduringthevoyage.AssumingtheCISGapplies,whobeartherisk?美国的交易商有10000桶原油，于1月1日从墨西哥起运，2月1日到达美国。在1月15日，交易商通知买方原油尚在运输途中，然后双方签订了一份合同。货物到达后，经检验发现，货物在运输途中被海水污染。假设联合国《国际货物销售合同》适用，哪一方应该承担风险呢？解析：应由买方承担风险。根据《国际货物销售合同》第68条：对于在运输途中销售的货物，从合同订立时起，风险就转移到买方承担。如果卖方在订立合同时已经知道或理应知道货物已经遗失或损坏，而他又不将这一事实告知买方，则这种遗失或损坏应由卖方负责。此案例中，卖方已通知买方原油在运输途中，而后才订立合同，因此风险应由买方承担；而没有证据显示卖方在订立合同时已经得知原油已被污染，因此风险仍由买方承担。Buyer.Article68saysthattheriskpassedtoBuyeratthetimethecontractwassignedsincethegoodswerealreadyintransit.IfBuyerhasinsurance,hemayhaveadifficulttimecollectingonit,sincethetimewhenthedamageoccurredisuncertain.Byagreement,SellerandBuyercouldhaveagreedthattheriskpassedtoBuyerattheoutsetofthevoyage.Forthepurposeofassertinganinsuranceclaim,thiswouldhavesimplifiedmatters.Chapter10case9李新月AvoidanceofInstallmentContractsUndertheCISGSelleragreedtodeliverthreesoftwareprogramstoBuyerthatarespeciallydesignedforBuyer'sbusiness.ThefirstwastobedeliveredinJanuary,thesecondinFebruary,andthethirdinMarch.TheprogramdeliveredinJanuaryworkedfine,buttheonedeliveredinFebruarywasdefective.Itnotonlyfailedtofunctionproperly.Italsomadetheothertwoprogramseffectivelyworthless.Sellerwasunabletocorrectthedefect,andnosuitablereplacementcouldbefoundfromanothersupplier.WhatCISGremediesareavailabletoBuyer?卖方同意向买方交付三个专门为买方业务设计的软件程序。第一个于1月交付，第二个将于2月交付，第三个将于3月交付。1月份交付的程序运行良好，但2月份交付的程序有缺陷。它不仅不能正常运行，还使得其他两个程序实际上毫无价值。卖方无法修正这一缺陷，也无法从其他供应商处找到合适的替代品。买方可获得CISG中的哪些救济？解析：根据CISG规定，买方可享有的救济措施是（1）请求实际履行；（2）因根本性违反合同或不交付货物而解除合同；（3）减价；（4）拒绝提前交付；（5）拒绝接受多交的货物。在本案例中，卖方交付的第二个程序有缺陷，不符合合同要求，且卖方已经无法采取补救办法履行其义务，也无法交付替代货物。在这一情况下，根据CISG第50条规定，如果货物不符合同，不论价款是否已付，买⽅都可以减低价格，减价按实际交付的货物在交货时的价值与符合合同的货物在当时的价值两者之间的⽐例计算。UnderArticle73,Buyermayavoidtheentirecontractsincethethreeprogramsareclearlyinterdependent.SellerwillhavetotakebacktheprogramsdeliveredinJanuaryandFebruary(andreturnthepriceBuyerpaid),andBuyermayrefusedeliveryofthethird(theMarch)program.Chapter10Case10:DamagesforBreachofContractUnderCISG程歆雯Sellercontractedtodeliver1,000barrelsofoiltoBuyerfor$14,000.Whentheoilarrived,975barrelscompliedfullywiththecontractdescription.Twenty-fivearecontaminatedandunacceptable.Oilincomparablebarrelswasavailableinthelocalmarketforapriceof$18abarrelin25-barrellots.SellerofferednottochargeBuyerforthebarrels.IsthereacontractunderCISG?Ifso,whatpaymentisduetotheSeller?买卖双方签订合同，卖方应将总价值为14000美元共1000桶油发给买方。当油到达买方时，其中975桶油完全符合合同中的描述，但有25桶油因收到污染而拒收。这类油桶在当地市场上，以25桶为一批出售，每桶价值18美元。买方主动没对这25桶油收费。问：根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（以下简称公约），该案例是否存在合同?如果有卖方应赔偿多少?Buyermayaskfordamages.Ifhebuysreplacementbarrelsonthelocalmarketandpaysareasonablepriceforthem,hewillbeentitled(underArticle75)tothatprice.IfBuyerdoesnotobtainsubstitutebarrels,hewillbeentitled(underArticle76)tothecurrentpriceattheplaceofdelivery;thatis,$18abarrel,or$450.Ifthishadbeenacaseinvolvingforcemajeure,Buyerwouldnothavebeenentitledtodamages,butonlyapricereduction.Article50providesforaproportionatepricereduction,sounderthatrule,thefinalpricewouldbereducedto$14abarrel,or$350.Chapter11case1谭扣Selleragreedtoship10,000tonsofpotatoesFOBTacoma,Washington,tobuyerinJapan.BuyerdesignatedtheSSRussettotakedeliveryatpier7inTacoma.Ontheagreed-upondatefordelivery,Sellerdeliveredthepotatoestopier7,buttheshipwasnotatthepier.Becauseanothershipusingthepierwasslowinloading,theRussethadtoanchoratamoorngbuoyintheharborandSellerhadtoarrangeforalightertotransportthepotatoesincontainerstotheship.ThelightertiedupalongsidetheRusset,andacablefromtheship'sboomwasattachedtothefirstcontainer.Asthecontainerbegantocrosstheship'srail,thecablesnapped.Thecontainerthenfellontherail,teeteredbackandforthforawhile,andfinallycrasheddownthesideoftheship,causingthelightertocapsize.Allofthepotatoesweredumpedintothesea.BuyernowsuesSellerforfailuretomakeadelivery.IsSellerliable?译文：卖方同意装运I万吨土豆给日本的买方，FOBTacoma。买方指定RUSSET轮在Tacoma的第七号码头接货。卖方在规定的交货日期将货物运送到装运港口的第七号码头，但是买方指定的船舶没有到达指定码头。因为另外艘船舶占用了码头，卸货速度极慢。RUSSET轮只能在系泊浮桶外抛铺。卖方只能安排驳船将装运货物的集装箱转运到船上。驳船将集装箱运到船边，由船上的吊车吊装上船，在集装箱即将越过船舷时，吊缆断了，集装箱落在船舷上，摇晃了几下，最终从船边滑落，将驳船砸翻了。所有的土豆都沉人海底。买方起诉，要求卖方承担不能交货的责任。卖方应当承担贵任吗?Answer:Yes,sellerisliableunderanFOBcontractuntilthegoodscrosstheship’srail.Analysis:ThetermFOBprovidesthatthetransferofriskofthegoodsshallbeonthesideoftheshipattheportofshipment.Ifanaccidentoccurswithoutpassingtheship'srailattheportofshipment,itshallbetheresponsibilityoftheseller;ifanaccidentoccursafterpassingtheship'srailattheportofshipment,itshallbetheresponsibilityofthebuyer.Inthiscase,thecontainerdidnotcrosstheship'srail,sothesellershouldbeheldresponsibleaccordingtoFOB.分析：卖方应当承担责任，因为货物未越过船舷。FOB这个贸易术语规定了货物的风险转移应该在装运港船舷处。若在未越过装运港船舷时发生意外事件，则为卖方的责任，若在越过装运港船舷后发生意外事件，则是买方承担责任。此案例中，集装箱并没有越过船舷，所以根据FOB，卖方应该承担责任。Chapter11case2陈靖Selleragreedtoship10,000tonsofpotatoesFOBTacoma,Washington,toBuyerinJapan.BuyerdesignatedtheSSRussettotakedeliveryatpier7inTacoma.Ontheagreeddatefordelivery,Sellerdeliveredthepotatoestopier7,buttheshipwasnotatthepier.Becauseanothershipusingthepierwasslowinloading,theRussethadtoanchoratamooringbuoyintheharborandSellerhadtoarrangeforalightertotransportthepotatoesincontainerstotheship.ThelightertiedupalongsidetheRussetandacablefromtheship’sboomwasattachedtothefirstcontainer.Asthecontainerbegantocrosstheship’srailthecablesnapped.Thecontainerthenfellontherail,teeteredbackandforthforawhile,andfinallycrasheddownthesideoftheshipandcapsizedthelighter.Allofthepotatoesweredumpedintothesea.BuyernowsuesSellerforfailuretomakedelivery.

SupposethecontracthadbeenFASTacoma.WouldSellerbeliable?卖方同意以华盛顿塔科马离岸价向日本买家发运1万吨土豆。买方指定SSRusset在塔科马的7号码头提货。在约定的交货日期，卖方将土豆运到7号码头，但船不在码头。由于使用码头的另一艘船装载速度较慢，赤褐色的船不得不停泊在港口的一个系泊浮标上，卖方不得不安排驳船把装在集装箱里的土豆运到船上。打火机绑在赤褐色的船舷上，一根缆绳从船的吊杆上系在第一个集装箱上。当集装箱开始越过船舷时，缆绳断了。然后集装箱掉在栏杆上，前后摇晃了一会儿，最后撞到船舷上，把打火机弄翻了。所有的土豆都被扔进了海里。买方现在起诉卖方未能交货。假设合同是FASTacoma。卖方有责任吗?2.Suppose,inQuestion1,thecontracthadbeenFASTacoma.WouldSellerbeliable?译文：在题目1中，假如合同采用的是FASTacoma，那么卖方是否承担责任呢？分析：No.Thesellerwouldnotbeliable.AccordingtoArticle69ofCISG,“Incasenotwithinarticles67and68,theriskpassestothebuyerwhenhetakesoverthegoodsor,ifhedoesnotdosoinduetime,fromthetimewhenthegoodsareplacedathisdisposalandhecommitsabreachofcontractbyfailingtotakedelivery.”Inthiscase,thecontracthadbeenFASTacoma.Theterm“freealongside”or“freealongsideship”requiresthesellertodelivergoodstoanamedportalongsideavesseltobedesignatedbythebuyerandinamannercustomarytotheparticularport.Alongsidehastraditionallymeantthatthegoodsmustbewithinreachofaship’sliftingtackle.Andinthiscase,theseller’slightershastakenthegoodstothebuyer’sship,andthesellerhadaccomplishedhisobligation.Instead,itisthebuyerwhoshouldbeliablefromthatpoint.卖方无需承担责任。根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第六十九条：在不属于第六十七条和第六十八条规定的情况下，从买方接受货物时起，或如果买方不在适当时间内这样做，则从货物交给他处置但他不收取货物从而违反合同时起，风险转移到买方承担。在本案中，合同采用的国际贸易术语为FAS，即船边交货价格。当货物在指定的启动港被置于船边或驳船之中后，卖方即完成交货的义务。运输风险的分界在装运港买方船舶的吊钩之下。在本案中，卖方已用驳船将货物集装箱运到船边，完成了交付义务。货物在买方使用吊缆装运货物时发生意外，因此责任应由买方承担，而非卖方。No.SellerisonlyrequiredunderanFAScontracttodeliverthegoodsalongsidethecarrierandwithinreachofthecarrier’stackle.ThisSellerdid.Buyerisresponsiblefromthatpointon.Chapter11case3陈逸菲Selleragreedtodeliver1,000airconditionerstoBuyerDESPortMoresby.TheairconditionersweretransportedbyshiptoPortMoresby,wheretheywereoff-loadedtothecuntomsshedforinspection.TheshipthensentacabletoBuyerstatingthattheairconditionerswereinthecustomsshedandthattheshipwasproceedingonitsway.BeforeBuyercouldarrivetopaycustomsdutiesandcollecttheairconditioners,thecustomsshedburneddown,destoryingalltheairconditioners.BuyersuesSellerforfallingtomakedelivery.IsSellerliable?卖方同意向买方指定的目的港-莫斯比尔提供1000台空调。空调以海运的方式运往莫斯比尔港，并在该港卸货接受海关检查。货轮向买家发送电报告知货物正在进行关检，接下来将继续运输。在买方缴纳关税验收货物前，海关失火，所有空调均被烧毁。买方控诉卖方没有履行运送职责，卖方应当负相应责任吗？解析：卖方不需承担响应责任。在此案例中，卖方是否需要负责任，主要看买卖双方的责任转换发生在运输的哪一环节。根据2010年通则，FOB和FAS原则适用于海运和内陆水运，都是在装运港交货。在货物装运上船前所产生的风险,FOB条款下由卖方承担,FAS条款下卖方则不用承担。卖方已经将货物运送到目的港，货物被烧毁发生在交货后，应该由买家承担此次损失。分析：FreeOnBoard,alsoknownasFOB,isoneofthetermscommonlyusedintheinternationaltrade.Ifthecontractisconcludedinthisterm,theBuyershalldispatchavesseltotakedeliveryofthegoods,andtheSellershallshipthegoodstotheBuyer'svesselwithinthestipulatedportandtimeandthenpromptlynotifytheBuyer.Whenthegoodspassovertheship'srailduringshipment,theriskpassesfromtheSellertotheBuyer.Inthiscase,thevesselhasdeliveredthegoodstoPortMoresbyasrequiredandtheSellerhastelegraphedtotheBuyerintime.Afterthevesselpassingtheship'srailatPortMoresby,thecostsandrisksoftransportingthegoodswillpasstotheBuyerfromtheSeller.Inthiscase，theSeller'sobligationhasbeenfulfilledandthedamageofairconditionersisnottheSeller'sresponsibility.FOB(FreeOnBoard)，也称"船上交货价"，是国际贸易中常用的术语之一。按此术语成交，由买方负责派船接运货物，卖方应在合同规定的装运港和规定的期限内，将货物装上买方指定的船只，并及时通知买方。货物在装船时越过船舷，风险即由卖方转移至买方。在本案例中，船只已按要求将货物送到规定的莫尔兹比港且已及时发电报通知买方。以装运港船舷为界，越过船舷后，卖方所负责的把货物由产地运往装运港的费用和风险将转移给买方。本案例中卖方的义务已完成，空调被毁坏不属于其责任。No.UnderaDEScontract,asellerfulfillshisobligationsbydeliveringthegoodstotheportofdestinationandpayingofftheship.Thebuyerisresponsibleforclearingthegoodsthroughcustoms.Chapter11case4贺子康SellerinSydney,Australia,agreedtoshipgoodsonorbeforeDecember31underaCIFSydneycontract

toBuyerinHonolulu.Thesellerwas

unabletoassemblethegoods

fordeliveryintimetoreachtheshipinSydneyandhadtotransshipthegoodsbyrailtoMelbourne,wheretheshipwastakingongoodsonJanuary3.SellerdidloadthegoodsaboardrailwaycarsinSydneyonDecember29andreceivedabillof

ladingfromtheship,andtogetherwithaninvoiceandamarineinsurancepolicy,tendered

bothbillsofladingtoBuyer.Buyerrefusedtoacceptthedocumentsortopay

Seller.Sellersuestoenforcethecontract.WillSellerwin?澳大利亚悉尼的卖方同意在12月31日或之前根据CIF悉尼合同向檀香山的买方发运货物。由于卖方未能及时将货物送达悉尼的装运船上，不得不通过铁路将货物转运到墨尔本，该装运船于1月3日在墨尔本接收货物。12月29日卖方确实在悉尼的铁路车上装货，从该船收到提单，并附上发票和海上保险单，向买方提交提单。买方拒绝接受文件或向卖方付款。卖方起诉以执行合同。卖方会胜诉吗？Analysis:Thesellerwillnotwinthecase.AccordingtoIncoterms2010,theseller'sdeliverytimeunderCIFisthetimewhenthegoodsareloadedontotheship.Inthiscase,thesellerdeliveredthegoodsinMelbourneonJanuary3,andtheseller’sdeliverytimeagreedinthecontractisonorbeforeDecember31,thesellerfailedtodeliverontime,andthebuyerhastherighttorefusetoacceptthedocumentsorpaytheseller.分析：卖方不会胜诉，根据《2010国际贸易术语解释通则》对于CIF术语的解释，CIF下卖方交货时间即货物装上船的时间，在本案中，卖方于1月3日在墨尔本将货物装上船，而合同中约定的卖方交货时间是12月31日或之前，卖方未按期装船，买方有权拒绝接受文件或向卖方付款分析：卖方不会赢。在CIF条件下，该悉尼的卖方应根据合同在12月31日或之前将货物送至悉尼的船并开始运送货物，但是买方1月3日才将货物运至墨尔本交货上船，CIF下的交货时间是装上船的时间，因此卖方并没有履行其交付货物、确保货物与合同相符的职责，买方有权拒绝接受货物。Itdependsonwhetherornotthegoodshadbeenclearedfromimportationbycustoms.Iftheyhad,thenBuyerwouldbeliablefortheloss.Ifnot,thenSellerwouldbeliable.Chapter11case5闭思君SellerinSanFranciscoagreedtoshipgoodstoBuyerinLondonunderaCIFSanFranciscocontract.Afterthegoodswereloadedboardtheship,butbeforeitdepartedfromSanFrancisco,SellertenderedthedocumentsrequiredbythecontracttoBuyerandaskedtobepaid.Buyerrefused,assertingthatithadarighttoinspectthegoodsupontheirarrivalinLondon,andthatitdidnothavetopayuntilitdidsoandwassatisfiedthatthegoodswereincompliancewiththecontract.Sellersuesforimmediatepayment.WillSellerwin?旧金山的卖方同意向伦敦的买方装运货物，合同规定CIFSanFrancisco。在货物被装上船之后，在船舶离开装运港口之前，卖方根据合同的规定将单据提交买方，要求付款。买方拒绝付款，声称其有权在伦敦验货，只有货物没有问题的情况下，买方才能付款。卖方起诉，要求买方立即付款。卖方能够胜诉吗?解析：Thesellerwillwin.ACIFcontractrequiresthesellertoarrangetheforthecarriageofgoodsbyseatoaportofdestinationandtoturnovertothebuyerthedocumentsnecessarytoobtainthegoodsformthecarrierortoassertaclaimagainsttheinsurerifthegoodsarelostordamaged.Thethreedocumentsthattheseller(asaminimum)hastoprovide----theinvoice,theinsurancepolicy,andthebilloflading----representthethreeelementsofthecontract:cost,insurance,andthefreight.Theseller’sobligationsarecompletedwhenthedocumentsaretenderedtothebuyer.Atthattime,thebuyerisobligedtopaytheagreed-uponprice.Inthiscase,thesellerhasal