• 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"?

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.35-60
• /
• 2013

The Incoterms which is one of the most useful international instrument for sale of goods provides when a contract goods deliver, risk passes and how costs are allocated between seller and buyer on the contract as long as they agree to use a rule of the Incoterms rules. The Incoterms rules have come into effective to use for an international or domestic trade of goods since January 2011, which have been modified several times since these established by ICC in 1936. The origin of Incoterms rules may had been appeared from English traditional FOB terms that had been affected to American regulations for the sale of goods. The Incoterms rules which had been started from the traditional English FOB terms and American FOB terms have been expanded other trade terms, such as CIF. Although FOB is based on the COD(Cash on Delivery), it is possible replaced COD to CAD(Cash against Delivery) through the use of Bill of Lading and Letter of Credit in the international sale of goods between seller and buyer according to the development of infrastructures on the international commercial transactions. This article exercises the process of transition of the Incoterms rules, being based on the English and American traditional FOB contract form through review literatures, judical precedents and provisions. Then this article provides some feasible alternatives to attempting to resolve some regulation problems of FCA, CPT, CIP, and D-rules in the Incoterms$^{(R)}$ 2010.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2013

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2011

In this article, the author have studied on main revisions and some recommendations of the Incoterms(R) 2010. Main revisions are as belows. 1. Two new Incoterms rules -DAT and DAP- have replaced the Incoterms 2000 rules DAF, DES, DEQ and DDU. 2. New classification of the Incoterms(R) 2010 are adopted. First class is Rules for any mode or modes of transport(EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAT, DAP and DDP belong to this class.) and second class is rules for sea and inland waterway transport(FAS, FOB, CFR and CIF belong to this class.). 3. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules formally recognizes that they are available for application to both international and domestic sale contracts. 4. The Guidance Notes and Introduction are not part of the actual Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 5. Under the FOB, CFR and CIF, all mention of the ship's rail as the point of delivery has been omitted in preference for the goods being delivered when they are "on board" the vessel. 6. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules include the obligation to 'procure goods shipped' as an alternative to the obligation to ship goods in the relevant Incoterms rules. 7. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules give electronic means of communication the same effect as paper communication. 8. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules have allocated obligations between the buyer and seller to obtain or to render assistance in obtaining security-related clearances. such as chain-of custody information. Some recommendations are as belows. 1. The parties must incorporate the Incoterms(R) 2010 rules into their contract of sale. 2. The parties must choose the appropriate Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 3. Specify the place or port as precisely as possible in their contract of sale. 4. Remember that Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not give the parties a complete contract of sale. 5. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not prohibit alteration of Incoterms rule, but there are dangers in so doings. In order to avoid any unwelcome surprises, the parties would need to make the intended effect of such alterations extremely clear in their contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.30
• /
• pp.59-88
• /
• 2006

After sources of risks are identical and measured, a decision can be made as to how the risk should be handled. A pure risk that is not identical does not disappear ; the business merely loses the opportunity to consciously decide on the best technique for dealing with that risk. The process used to systematically manage risk exposures is known as risk management. Risk management is the logical process used by business firms and individuals to deal with their exposures to loss. It is a strategy of preloss planning for postloss resources. Besides, in the enterprise judiciary researches the textbook and the instance which relate risks, and reflects it to the written contract provision and various every manuel or holds seminar. It is a risk management which this talks generally. Here it stands but it becomes a problem the quality of type and countermeasure of risks. The purpose of this paper aims to explain adequate preventions to positively predict the risk this before being materialized, in practical section which is directly exposed to these risks in introducing international sale contracts(for example, the FOB and CIF contract) and the active management method of the risk which accompanys to the execution. And also analyzes the Lite-On case which relates with an international sale contracts.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2015

The Rotterdam Rules are not phrased in favour of FOB seller's legal status. Whether it will be wise under the Rotterdam Rules to trade on the basis of cash against M/R largely depends on the interpretation of various provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. To protect his interests the M/R holder and his assigns must have a right of delivery of the cargo at the port of destination. The M/R holder and his assigns must be entitled to the bill of lading or at least be able to prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to the shipper. Besides, any additional right of instruction on the part of the shipper must be blocked. Article 35 of the Rules entitles only the shipper to the bill of lading while 47 entitles only the holder of the bill of lading to delivery. When no bill of lading has been issued Article 45 grants to the shipper a right of instruction whereby the shipper is allowed to advise the carrier as to the name and the address of the consignee. I have suggested that by lack of a specific provision to the contrary the Rotterdam Rules have to be considered to be embedded in the system of law as a whole. From the Common Law it follows that a M/R holder, as owner of the cargo, can ask for delivery of the cargo. As owner of the cargo a M/R holder can also claim the bill of lading, if he does so in time, because it must be implied in the contract of carriage that the carrier must deliver the bill of lading to the owner of the goods. It is for the same reason that a M/R holder can prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to any third party but the M/R holder and from taking instructions from the shipper as to name and address of a consignee other than the M/R holder.

• Proceedings of the Safety Management and Science Conference
• /
• 2012.04a
• /
• pp.371-380
• /
• 2012

Although all costs concerned in transportation be separated by region and each terms and conditions of Incoterms that state cleary them who have to pay the charges. But, almost lcl exporters donot want to pay their charges the carriers at loading port eventhough they make the contracts with the importer as FOB and CFR of Incoterms. And the carrier have been do not bill the FOB charges to the shipper. Now, there are no more Incoterms in LCL transportation. So, the importer have been payed loading port charges twice, first, the contract with the shipper, secondly, through the destination charge. These problems make decreasing of trading volume and increasing of logistics costs. We suggest every traders and carriers separate the costs as per the price terms and conditions of incoterms and bill/receive the costs separated the trader who have to pay the charges as per their price terms. It will bring mutual success in the world and increasing trade.

• 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.75
• /
• pp.49-69
• /
• 2017

Making a international contract of sale is not a simple work. International Trade parties(seller and buyer) may choose trade terms such as FOB or CIF to simplify their contracts and avoid misunderstanding of international commercial practice. Incoterms is the international rules for the interpretation of the trade terms, and firstly regulated by the ICC in 1936. The latest version is Incoterms 2010. Incoterms 2010 governs certain responsibilities between the seller and the buyer under the international contract of sale. Moreover, Incoterms 2010 provides the standard of division of costs relating to contract of carriage. But we should note that Incoterms 2010 is not the part of contract of carriage. The writer points out that there is no consistence principle in distributing the special costs under the contract of carriage like unloading cost from the transport vehicle. To avoid the dispute between the parties, it is more safe for international traders to fully and completely understand on the customs and practice of carriage of goods. Incoterms 2010 provides more detailed method of delivery of goods than CISG and RAFTD. Concerning the method of delivery of goods, CISG and RAFTD simply provide that the seller shall place the goods at the discharge of buyers. The writer suggests the basic principles to allocate the special costs of delivery of goods according to the trade terms under Incoterms 2010.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.203-219
• /
• 2021

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to review and analyzes the contract of carriage and delivery/transport document in light of the major changes made to the Incoterms^® 2020 rules forced into effect on January 1st, 2020. Design/methodology - This study analyzed responsibility for the loading and unloading of goods under the contract of carriage in Incoterms 2020^® rules forced into effect by the ICC from January 1, 2020, and what document must be presented as evidence of delivery by the seller. Findings - A review revealed that in Rule C, the costs of unloading at the place of destination are determined by the terms of the contract of carriage, and in the DAP and DDP rules, if the seller bears the unloading costs, such unloading costs cannot be recovered from the buyer. To settle this issue, the seller needs to make a contract of carriage by sea with the carrier on FI terms. Furthermore, in the case of containerized goods that the FCA should be used, FOB was misused because the seller could not present an on-board bill of lading in the L/C transaction. However, it was confirmed that in FCA, the parties can use an optional mechanism to issue an on-board bill of lading. Originality/value - Incoterms 2020^® rules are still widely used in international trade by parties to contract sales around the world, just like Incoterms 2010^® rules. This study attempts to reduce or eliminate disputes that may arise from interpretative misunderstandings between the parties in the contract of sales concluded by the seller and the buyer.