注册上海公司热线021-61508352|专业办理增资

专业办理进出口公司注册

美国分公司注册和L1签证办理

Case 1 CIP or CIF
内陆产品出口贸易术语的选择案例（点击查看详情）

Case 2 Damage caused by a fire accident in EXW contract
In April 1997,an export company in Shantou(hereafter called companyB)signed a contract with an importer in Hong Kong(here after called company A)selling 3,000 dozens of nylon upper garments,US$15/dozen EXW Shantou,packing in cartons,five dozens per carton,shipment before June 15,paymenent by T/T after company A's examing the goods.这里EXW是工厂交货，指货物没出厂时只要一经买方点收即应向买方交待货物所有权已转移，这笔交易也就结束，此时，卖方应全额收取货款，以免发生意外，造成经济损失。

Case 3 Buyer's delaying to send vessel under FOB
Company A in China signed acontract on FOB terms to export wheat to Company B in Africa.It was contracted that shipment should be made in four lots.The shipping clause ran as follows:'the vessel nominated by the buyer should reach the port of shipment within eight days before the dat of shipment.Otherwise, any of the seller's loss or damage thus incurred shall be bore buy the buyer.' The contract also specified that ' the buyer must give the seller a notice of vessel name and the estimated date of arrival by telecommunication five days before the vessel arrives at the port of shipment'.采用FOB术语签订合同，买方须按时派船接货。在《2000年国际贸易术语解释通则》中关于FOB有如下条款：B3.a.买方必须自付费用订立从指定的装运港运输货物的合同。B7通知卖方：买方必须给予卖方充分说明并通知船只名称、装货地点和交货需要的时间。因此，如果买方指定的船只没按时到达，或没能接受货物，或比规定时间提前停止装货，则自规定的交货日期或期限届满之日起，买方完全承担由此造成的货物灭失和损坏的一切风险。

Case 4 CFR&shipping notice
An import and export company in China signed an export contract on CFR with an importer in Marseilles, France on drawnwork tablecloth for an amount of US$80,000 , payment by D/P at sight.
Under Incoterms 2000,Cost and Freight(CFR) term, all the risks,duties and expenses after goods' passing ship's rail are normally borne by the buyer as its definition states:"Cost and Freight" means that the seller delivers when the goods pass the ship's rail in the port of shipment. The seller must pay the costs and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination.But the risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as any additional costs due to events occurring after the time of delivery, are transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Incoterms 2000 also provides that "the seller must give the buyer sufficient notice." CFR A7 has provisions for the seller's duty in this regard.
A7.Notice to the buyer: The seller must give the buyer sufficient notice that the goods have been delivered in accordance with A4 as well as any other notice required in order to allow the buyer to take measures which are normally necessary to enable him to take the goods.
Here the word "sufficient" refers to both "sufficient" content and "sufficient" time. The latter means 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. The later the seller sends the shipping notice, the less sufficient time the buyer has to insure the goods. 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 refered to as "insurance notice" in trade practices.
When CFR terms or FOB terms are used in combination with payment by collection,the seller may cover the goods against"seller's interest risk" before exporting the goods to counteract the buyer's failure to effect insurance or the buyer's refusal to retire the documents.

Case 5 CFR&goods quality
A French company imported a batch of wheat on CFR basis. The contract provided that the landing quality of the goods should be taken as final. However,when the goods arrived at the destination, the import quarantine bureau detained the goods as they found that the goods contained agreat deal of bacteria forbidden to enter the country. Unfortunately, the goods were consumed by a fire while in detainment. A Dispute broke out between the buyer and the seller.
Under CFR terms, the buyer should bear all the risks after the goods have passed the ship's rail and been loaded on board. But should the seller be held liable for any default before that point?
In this case, it was the seller who should bear the damage to the goods. The reason is that although this was a CFR contract, the seller breached it by delivering the goods which failed to meet the quality standard provided in the contract.It was this fundamental default that has caused the detainment and then the loss of the goods. Therefore,while the risks had been transferred to the buyer, the seller's default returned the risks to the seller himself.
Of course, under CFR contract, when the seller's default is not fundamental, the buyer should bear all the risks for any loss of goods at the port of destination. Meanwhile,the seller should make due compensation to the buyer as per the contract and relevant laws.

Case 6 CIF or not?
In 2002, a Chinese exporter exported 500M/T walnut to a Canadian importer on the basis of US$4,800 per M/T CIF Quebec. As it was a seasonal commodity, the importer required and both parties agreed to stipulate the following in the contract.
L/C Issuing Date: to be issued by the end of September.
Shipment: not later than Oct.31, partial shipment and transshipment prohibited.
Arrival Date:not later than Nov.30. Otherwise, the buyer is entitled to refuse the goods.
Terms of payment: Draft at 90 T/D under L/C.
Due to the bad weather,the liner arrived at Quebec on Dec.5. Consequently, the importer refused to take the delivery of the cargo unless 20% discount of the total value of the goods was made for the loss incurred to the importer. After painful negotiations,the transaction came to an end with the exporter's loss of US$360,000 by the discount of 15% of the total value of the goods.
Then,what is the crux of this case?
The crux of the case lies in the stipulation of the "arrival date". The fatal error made by the exporter was that he agreed on this contract clause out of his ignorance.
Although the contract was concluded on CIF basis,it was not a genuine CIF contract. This case indicates the significance of CIF term's sphere of application. The two special clauses in the original contract not only contradicted with the nature of CIF term, but also disagreed with the practices of international justice and arbitration.
Under Incoterms 2000, CIF means that the seller delivers when the goods pass the ship's rail in the porrt of shipment.
The seller must pay the costs and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination. But the risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as any additional costs due to events occurring after the time of delivery, are transferred from the seller to the buyer.
Obviously,CIF does specify that the seller has completed its delivery obligations when the goods have "passed the ship's rail" at the port of shipment. However, the original contract not only set a limit to the date of arrival, but also stipulated that the buyer was entitled to cancel the contract or demand back the payment that had already been made. Evidently, the restrictive date of arrival served not as the date of payment, but as a condition of payment. Therefore, legally the contract was not a genuine CIF contract as it made physical delivery a condition of payment.
Under CIF terms, the risk of loss of or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the goods have passed the ship's rail at the port of shipment. A contract that expands the buyer's risk from the port of shipment to the port of destination is not a CIF contract. According to the provision in the original contract, the Chinese exporter was obligated to refund the payment in case of natural calamities or accidents during the course of delivering the goods, which evidenced that the seller assumed all the risks during the transport.
And article9.3 under Incoterms 2000 does stress buyer's obligation with respect to the arrival of the goods at the port of destination.
9.3:In particular, the seller should not--and indeed could not, without changing the very nature of the "C"--terms--undertake any obligations with respect to the arrival of the goods at destination,since the risk of any delay during the carriage is borne by the buyer.
So,under CIF terms, the buyer must make payment against documents rather than against the arrival of the goods at the port of destination, provided that the seller has fulfilled his delivery obligations and presented the required documents. According to the original contract, whether the Chinese exporter could receive the payment for goods or not depended on buyer's receiving the goods on schedule. Although the seller might receive the payment by means of L/C, the payment would be taken back by the buyer if the goods could not duly arrive at the port of destination. Besides, the Chinese exporter could not take advantage of relevant L/C clauses which need to be in accordance with those in the original contract and deny the payment to seller. The Chinese exporter could hardly make a claim for his rights under a normal CIF contract since this contract was signed only "in name" but could not be fulfilled in reality.

Case 7
   专业办理进出口公司注册

   美国分公司注册和L1签证办理