國貿(mào)實務(wù)-案例分析-Case-Studies

1、國貿(mào)實務(wù)-案例分析-Case-StudiesCase Studies of International TradeCourse: Practice of International Trade Adviser: Gao Yanfeng Grade&Class: Grade 2012 Class 5 Name: Li YuanbaoStudent ID: 120440502Date: 20th December, 2014Case Studies of International TradeName: Li Yuanbao Student ID: 120440502Case 1 Qual

2、ity 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 ord

3、er 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?譯文：一家中國出口商與一家歐洲出口

4、商簽訂了一個合同， 賣方向買方出口 5 公噸 的紅棗。合同與信用證上明確標注，賣方所提供的是三等的紅棗。當準備貨物 裝運時，賣方發(fā)現(xiàn)三等紅棗的倉儲存貨不足。為了使貨物按時到達，賣方將二 等紅棗配送到給買方，并在商務(wù)發(fā)票上注明二等紅棗的價格與三等紅棗一致。你認為出口方這么做是否合理。賣方這樣做有何風險？Analysis on Case 1:According to UCP500, Article 37, the description of goods in the commercial invoices must correspond with the description in the C

5、redit. 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 rejecti

6、ng 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 shipme

7、nt 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 didn

8、' texceed 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? 譯文：一

9、家中國出口公司向位于中東的一個國家出口 1000 臺電風扇。 合同與信 用證上都規(guī)定了不允許分批運裝。當這批風扇被運送到港口進行裝運的時候， 發(fā)現(xiàn)有 40 臺電風扇有損壞，但由于裝運的時間限制，所以無法對殘次的風扇進 行更換。發(fā)貨方認為，根據(jù) UCP 500 5% 溢短裝條款，如果貨物（電風扇）的數(shù) 量不超過信用證上的數(shù)量或者少于 40 臺以內(nèi)的數(shù)量，都是在 5% 的范圍內(nèi)的。 最終，960 臺風扇被運送到了進口方。 當賣方向銀行提交船運文件以商討款項支 付時，銀行拒絕了這一請求。銀行這么做合理嗎？Analysis on Case 2:According to UCP500, Article

10、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 stip

11、ulates 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

12、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 i

13、mporter 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 to

14、tal loss, but was refused.譯文：一家中國進口商從法國出口商處進口了一些易燃的化學原材料液體。 貨物到 港的時候，買方發(fā)現(xiàn)由于一些貨物的包裝有瑕疵，貨物出現(xiàn)了輕微的泄露。然8而中國進口方未能采取措施減少損失，也并未采取措施來防止損害的擴大。結(jié)果貨物進入倉儲倉庫后，液體泄漏加劇從而導致了自燃火災。事后中國進口商 向法國出口商針對所有的損失提出了全部賠償?shù)乃髻r要求，但是被法國方拒絕。Analysis on Case 3:In view of the situation in this case, the Chinese importer could not make a c

15、laim 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

16、 of the damage. Under such circumstances, it was the importer ' sresponsibility to protect the goods and prevent the damage from expanding. Since the goods self-ignition had resulted from the importer ' s failure to fulfill such responsibility, the exporter should not be responsible for the

17、expansion of the damage. As per CISG Article 86 (1),th“e bIfuyer has received the goods and intends to exerciseany 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 b

18、een reimbu rsed 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 importer 's failur

19、e 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 b

20、y 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 insur

21、ance 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 shippingadvice, we are unable to ins

22、ure 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

23、 exporter, for the reason that the importer refused to take up the shipping documents.Who should be responsible for the loss and why?譯文：一家中國出口商與一家美國進口商簽訂了一份按 CFR 成交的合同，該合同 的貨物為價值 5 萬美元的肉罐頭，付款方式為即期付款交單。 2006年 5 月 5 日 的早晨，貨物已經(jīng)全部被裝載到指定的貨船上。中方負責該筆訂單的人員繁忙 中未能將發(fā)貨通知書及時發(fā)給買方，直到第二天早晨才將發(fā)貨通知書發(fā)出。令 人意想不到的是，當美國進口方

24、去當?shù)氐谋ｋU公司為貨物投保時，保險公司已 得知該艘貨船已經(jīng)在 5 月 6 號遭受了沉船事故，因此拒絕對該批貨物承保。美 國進口方立即向中方發(fā)送了傳真，傳真內(nèi)容如下： “由于你方未能及時發(fā)送發(fā)貨通知書，我方無法為本批貨物投?！，F(xiàn)在貨船由于沉船而損毀，貨物損失應由 你方負責。 并且你方應當補償我方的利潤與開支損失， 共計 5 萬美元?！辈痪煤螅?所有的船運單據(jù)經(jīng)過代收銀行返回到中國的出口商手里，因為上述的原因，中 方拒絕了該付款贖單。誰該為損失負責？為什么？Analysis on Case 4:Under CFR term, all the risk s duties and expenses a

25、fter goods' passing ship ' srail 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

26、 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 seller 's failure to send the “ sufficient notice led to his loss of both goods and money. On the other hand, if the seller h

27、ad 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 buyer ' seffecting insur

28、ance 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 F

29、OB terms are used in combination with payment bycollection, the seller may cover the goods against “ seller in'tesrest risk ”before exporting the goods to counteract the buyerfailure'toseffect insurance or thebuyer 's refusatlo retire the documents. Had the seller in this case covered th

30、e 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 fr

31、om 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 loos

32、ened.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

33、 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 b

34、y the carrier but by the shipper, Company A.Which party should compensate Company C? Give reasons to support your answer.譯文:一家中國公司（ A 公司）與一家巴西公司（ C 公司）簽訂了一份銷售合同。 A 公司委托船運公司 （ B 公司）從上海港口運送 1 萬袋咖啡豆到巴西的某一個港 口。B公司簽署了清潔提單，表明每袋咖啡豆重量為60千克，貨物外表狀況良好。當貨物抵達目的地時， C 公司發(fā)現(xiàn)貨物中有 600袋咖啡豆的重量比合同中規(guī) 定的重量少了 25% ，而且貨物的包裝也是

35、松散的。因此， C 公司以發(fā)貨數(shù)量與信用證上貨物數(shù)量不符為由起訴 B 公司，并要求 B 公司賠償損失。 B 公司隨后提供了相關(guān)的證據(jù)來證明包裝松散與重量不足的現(xiàn) 象在貨物裝運的時候已經(jīng)存在，之所以簽訂清潔提單是因為公司無法檢查每一 個包裝。既然貨物數(shù)量差異不是由B公司造成的，那B公司就不需要賠償損失。 調(diào)查也確認了 600 袋咖啡豆的重量不足并非由貨運公司造成，而是由出口方 A 公司造成的。哪一方應想 C 公司賠償？給出依據(jù)來論證你的觀點Analysis on Case 5:Company B should compensate Company C, because the consignee

36、 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. Th