• 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.46
• /
• pp.105-130
• /
• 2010

CISG provides the place of payment at the Article 57 which if the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it to the seller (a) at the seller's p lace of business or (b) if the payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, at the place where the handing over takes place. When the parties have agreed that payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, the place where this is to happen according to the contract or CISG is the place of payment. When the parties have not agreed to this, the place of payment is the seller's place of payment. The buyer does not send the money to seller's office, but pays it to the seller's bank account. Where payment is effected by a L/C, such operations shall be governed by UCP and collection of money governed by URC. The payment at the seller's place of payment affects the rate of interest, currency of money and jurisdiction which is interpreted by Brussel convention and Lugano convention. The principle on which the CISG is based, characterizes the obligation of payment as an obligation to be performed at the creditor's place of business. This principle affects the place of damage claims payable to be at the creditor's that place. Payment at the place of business is required, but not inside the place itself.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.75
• /
• pp.1-28
• /
• 2017

Article 67 of CISG which provides for the passing of risk of loss of the goods applies to the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. The risk here is in nature the price risk. Under Article 67(1), if the seller is bound to hand the goods over to a carrier at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier at that place; if the seller is not bound to hand them over at a particular place, the risk passes to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the carrier. In these cases, the risk passes even though the seller duly retains documents controlling the disposition of the goods. Article 69 of CISG applies to the contract of sale that does not involve carriage of the goods. Under Article 69(1) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when the buyer takes over the goods, however if the buyer does not take over the goods in due time, the risk passes at the time when the goods are placed at the buyer's disposal and he commits a breach of contract by failing to take delivery. Under Article 69(2) which covers the situation that the buyer is bound to take over the goods at a place (including his own place of business) other than the place of business of the seller, the risk passes when delivery is due and the buyer is aware of the fact that the goods are placed at his disposal at that place. Under these provisions of CISG, this study suggests what should be the definition of the contract of sale involving carriage of the goods. This study goes further to looks into what should be the concepts of the handing over of the goods by the seller to the carrier, the taking over of the goods by the buyer and the placing the goods at the buyer's disposal by the seller. This study may, we hope, provide a guidance for clearer understanding of the exact time of passing of risk under CISG.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.159-182
• /
• 2014

CISG Article 71 (1) states that a party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after the conclusion of the contract, it becomes apparent that the other party will net perform a substantial part of his obligations as a result of a serious deficiency in his ability to perform or in his creditworthiness or his conduct in preparing to perform or in perfoming the contract. CISG Article 71 (2) states a 'right of stoppage in transit' that if the seller has already dispatched the goods before the grounds described in the preceding paragraph become evident, he may prevent the handing over of the goods to the buyer even though the buyer holds a document which entitles him to obtain them. The present paragraph relates only to the rights in the goods as between the buyer and the seller. Under the right of stoppage in transit, the carrier copes with risks that the seller may claim damages arose from the handing over the goods, if he hand over the goods to the buyer and that the buyer may claim damages, if he deny handing over the goods to the buyer who has the document which entitles him to obtain the goods. Therefore the legal position of the carrier may become weak. This paper purpose to point out the legal weakness of the carrier under the right of stoppage in transit and to provide the proper legal act of the carrier and possible practice related to various characters of the contract of sale of the goods. Although there is the opinion it prevent from handing over the goods to the buyer actually under the interpretation that the buyer should take claim damages to the seller, if the goods are handed over to the buyer under the right of stoppage in transit, it is not appropriate because the opinion may disable the right of stoppage in transit. The right of stoppage in transit could be carried out under any payment conditions except letter of credit and under any mode of transportation except the cases that carrier is the buyer himself or the agent of the buyer. It could be executed regardless the forms of the transport document.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2018

Under CISG the places of delivery by the seller of the goods are: If the seller is not bound to deliver the goods at any other particular place and the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods, the seller has to hand the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. However, if the contract does not involve carriage of the goods, he has to place them at the buyer's disposal at the place where, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, both the seller and the buyer knew that the goods were at, or were to be manufactured or produced. This rule applies when the contract relates to specific goods, or unidentified goods to be drawn from a specific stock or to be manufactured or produced. Finally, in ant other cases the seller has to place the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where the seller had his place of business at the time of the conclusion of the contract. As to time of delivery, if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, the seller has to deliver the goods on that date. If a period for delivery is fixed by or determinable from the contract, he has to deliver the goods on any date within that period. In this way the seller chooses the specific date of delivery within that period, while circumstances indicate otherwise that the choice is to be made by the buyer. There no such date or period, the seller has to deliver the goods within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract. If the seller delivers the goods before such the date or period, the buyer is entitled to take delivery or refuse to take delivery. Under these backgrounds of provisions of CISG, this study first suggests the concepts of the handing over of the goods by the seller to the carrier and the placing them at the buyer's disposal. Then it goes further to looks into exactly where and when the delivery has to occur. In these context, this study more examines what happens if there is a breach of contract by the seller in connection with the delivery. That is, if the seller delivers non-conforming goods or at wrong place; what if there is a partial delivery or a premature delivery.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2017

The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Article 38 lays down a fundamental principle that requires the buyer to examine quickly the goods delivered by the seller. Article 38 (1) provides that the examination be made within as short a period as practicable in the circumstances. The goods have to be examined within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The rule is based on the fundamental idea of reasonableness, meaning that the buyer must examine the goods as soon as reasonably possible. It may be said that the buyer should act reasonably fast. Article 38 (2), (3) concerns sales involving carriage of the goods, where the seller's obligation to deliver consists in handing the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. In this case the buyer is generally able to examine the goods only after they have come to destination. Article 38 (3) takes into account the case where the buyer redirects the goods in transit or re-dispatches them to another destination. Redirection in transit occurs when the destination is changed before the goods are received by the buyer. The buyer could re-dispatch the goods without having them unloaded, or re-dispatch them through another carrier.

• Journal of Korean Port Research
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 1989

The amount of the Korean export & import in 1987 reached $88.3 billion which was 1.75% of the total world trade and the proportion of foreign dependence to G.N.P was 74.5%. From these facts, we can infer that the development of national economy is largely dependent upon trade. Therefore the role of transportation, especially Ocean transportation, as a basis of economic development through trade is one of the main factors that can not be passed over. Here, We can define that a port as a subsystem of transportation determines the efficiency of the total transportation system. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to contribute in improvement of the efficiency in port, reinforcement of the international competitiveness for exporting goods by the analysis of the cargo handling charges. In order to do this, this paper deals the case of B.C.T.O.C. Furthermore, this study gives some important informations related to the level of tariffs for establishing an autonomous port administration. The Summary of the conclusions of this paper is as follows ; 1) The object of port administration in Korea has been emphasized on the maximization of efficiency in using the port facilities. Nowadays, however, it should be moved to a direction that port is operated under the compound aims considering the public interests and economy. 2) For a criterian of tariff calculation, A tariff system based on the cost accounting is desirable. In general it is recommended that the cost for construction, management, and operation of port is compensated by the revenue from port operation. Therefore, it is necessary for the administration bodies of each port to establish a tariff system on the basis of the independent profit system. 3) For the investigation of actors of tariff adjustment by the Break-even point analysis, (1) When we conducted the B.E.P analysis using total cost as cost term, we got 3.8% discount in tariff at 12% of target profit rate and 1.5% discount at 15% of rate. when we set the target profit rate as 17% we could have the proper tariff level. (2) When using operating cost as cost term, we got 13.1% discount in tariff at 12% of target profit rate and 10.9% discount at 15% of rate. When setting the target profit rat as 28%, we could have the proper tariff level. 4) Comparing with the tariffs of foreign ports for the basic terminal rate, The tariff level of B.C.T.O.C showed 33% of stevedoring charge and 80% of marshalling charge incurred at Kobe port. The comparison with Singapore port gave 50% of transhipment charge and 17% - 20 % of stevedoring charge. 5) We found that the financial structure of B.C.T.O.C was better than those of other companies and the worth fixed assets ratio was too low. The fact of low worth fixed assets ratio implies that the cargo handling facilities should be increased. Moreover, The return of assets for B.T.T.O.C was good but non-operating expenses were still contained too much in. Therefore, we think that it is necessary for B.C.T.O.C. to rationalize business management. Although the present cargo handing charge for B.C.T.O.C is a proper level in terms of a public corporation, for the final recommendation in connection to the results, It is required to take the rationalization process for business management.