• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.587-609
• /
• 1994

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.19 no.12
• /
• pp.2993-3002
• /
• 2015

INCOTERMS 2010 apply to the International Trade Contract for the last 5 years. The export trade condition and the document type for last 10 years was researched to analysis of the practical problems of INCOTERMS 2010 application. The result of the research; First, several rules which are against the official INCOTERMS 2010 rules are used. Second, the conventional rules like FAS FOB, CIF and CFR which are used for the ocean and inland transportation are applied without any changes. Third, the issue of the time of delivery(transfer of ownership) at the CPT and CIP affects not to activate these two rules. Fourth, the frequency of the DAT use is low. Because, the terminal designate is hard at the point of the contract and the terminal is changeable during the transport. According to these issues, the active publicity campaign is needed for the INCOTERMS 2010. And, the analysis of the terms and the solution of conflict are also needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to examine thoroughly on passing of risk in contracts for the international sale of goods. Articles 66~70 of the CISG contain provisions on passing of risk. Article 66 states the main effect of passing risk to the buyer. Article 67~69 determine the decisive point in time which the risk passes from the seller to the buyer and article 70 attempts to explain the relation between passing of risk and fundamental breach of contract by the seller. As in the case corresponding Incoterms rules, the main issue to be resolved is which party should bear the economic consequences in the event that the goods are accidentally lost, damages or destroyed. Many cases also apply CISG articles 66~70 to contracts in which parties not agree on the use of trade terms such as CIF, CFR, FOB and FCA in Incoterms[R] 2010 Rule that provide for when the risk passes. In order to minimize disputes that may arise under contract, when drawing up a contracts for the international sale of goods, the specifics of agreement should be clearly stipulated. Consequently, the parties of contracts for the international sale of goods should take adequate measures, and it is required to prepare the contracts clearly as the specific terms to prevent and resolve contractual disputes on passing of risk.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.113-132
• /
• 2014

Judicial decisions make it clear that in all CIF, CFR and FOB contracts, incorporation of charter party into sale contracts is the only effective way for recovery of demurrage in the context of sale contracts. The case law would appear to clarify a number of important issues: The words of incorporation in the sale contract play a vital role in determining the extent of the influence of the charter party principles over the sale contract. Hence, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, the courts tend to apply the charter party principles to the incorporated charter party provisions to the extent that they make sense in the context of sale contract, and that they do not undermine the underlying foundations of international trade law. In this respect the courts also take into account the factual background of the case with a view to objectively ascertaining the intention of the parties. The law is, however, less clear on the effects of the incorporated charter party provisions in sale contracts. There is still no straightforward answer to the question of to what extent the charter party law is applied to the incorporated charter party provisions in the context of sale contracts. The case law on this matter merely provides piecemeal solutions, and it is not possible to extract a general rule which will help interpretation of those charter party provisions which have not yet been subject to litigation or arbitration. Therefore, it should be noted that the parties would prepare Incorporation Clause in their sale contracts in reliance of the rules to achieve the desired results.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to examine the obligations of delivery of the goods focusing on the methods of delivery under the Incoterms 2010, comparing with CISG. The Incoterms 2010 provides various methods of delivery of the goods under the each rule(11 rules). And it is a little confusing for the parties of the contract of sales. This study reviewed specific methods of delivery of the goods with the view of practitioner. The purpose of Incoterms is to avoid misunderstanding of the contract of sales and to promote the international transactions. The uncertainties of the Incoterms 2010 shall cause disputes between the parties. Especially, when vehicles are used to pick up and deliver the goods, which party is responsible for the loading and unloading the goods. Under the D-term, which party is responsible for unloading the goods from the vehicle reached at the named place of destination is a little confusing. This study suggest some ideas on the specific methods of delivery to mitigate uncertainties and accept current practices at the field. Firstly, under the EXW rule, the seller must deliver the goods on the arriving means of transport at the seller's premises. Secondly, under the FCA rule, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded at the other place except seller's premises. Thirdly, under the CPT, CIP rules, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded irrespective of the mode of transport at the place of destination. Fourthly, the FOB, CFR, CIF rules must adapt the container transport practice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2003

The time of examination of buyer in international sales contract is very significant, because the time is related with the period of claim in buyer's aspect. From the legal point of view, the time of delivery, the time of examination and the time of quality decision should be in accord. But the buyer, whose main place of business is located in importing country, wants to examine the goods in his own country. Therefore in CIF or FOB Contract, the place of delivery and the place of examination are divided. Thus the CISG, the Common Law System and the Civil Law System including Korean Law stipulate the buyer's examination at the destination if the sales contract involves carriage of the goods. This author, from the buyer's perspective, would like to make the following suggestions in regard to the time of examination when the sales contract is made. First, the time of examination and the time of quality decision should be in accord, even though the time of delivery is different. Second, the buyer should clearly indicate the time, the place, the inspector, the particulars and the burden of proof in regard to examination when contracting. Third, the buyer should also clearly indicate the period of notice for the lack of conformity in Claim Clause of sales contract, which should be counted from the time of examination. Fourth, the buyer should remember that he many lose the right to rely on the lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give the seller notice thereof within the stipulated time or reasonable time. Finally, if the buyer wants, to examine the goods at the place of shipment, it is desirable for the buyer to designate internationally recognized inspection organization like SGS.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

Seller's obligation on the Delivery of Goods and Handing over the Documents are key elements in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) has been entered into force on 1 January 1988 to create international certainty and uniformity in the law and to govern issues that arise in an international sale of goods transaction. The Incoterms were first published by the ICC in 1936 and were most recently revised in 2010. Incoterms 2010 are entering into force on 1 January 2011. The Incoterms focus on the seller's delivery obligations and reflect the principle that the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods. This study highlights basic rules covering seller's obligation of delivery of goods and handing over the documents under the Incoterms 2010 and the United Nations Convention and Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In the second chapter, this study will provide analyses and compare these two legal systems in relation to the basic rules governing delivery of goods and passing of risks in contract of sale. This chapter evaluates the meaning of Article 31 and Article 67(1) and FOB, CFR, CIF & FCA, CPT, CIP terms of Incoterms 2010. Chapter Three will focus on handing over the documents. Article 30 CISG imposes the seller's primary obligations to deliver the goods and to hand over documents relating to them. Article 34 CISG supplements the seller's obligation in relation to documents by providing that the seller must hand over documents relating to the goods. In contrast, Article 58(1) CISG imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay only when it has received the goods or documents controlling their disposition. I reviewed only some of the documents relating to the goods are documents controlling their disposition. This chapter considers the meaning of the phrase "documents that control the disposition of the goods and do not control disposition of the goods." Finally, the fourth chapter will assess the meaning of rules of CISG and Incoterms 2010.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.