• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.11-51
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the problems and the suggestions of proper ideas for solving them which are arisen from appling CIF, Incoterms 1990 into the contract of sale after reviewing of the contents of traditional CIF contract and the main changes of CIF, Incoterms 1990. This study summerized as follows: First, when the seller provide the buyer with non-negotiable sea waybill or inland waterway document instead of negotiable bill of lading, it is my feeling that the essence of symbolic delivery in traditional CIF contract is fading. And if the buyer has paid for the goods in advance, or a bank wishes to use the goods as security for a loan extended to the buyer, it is not sufficient that the buyer or the bank be named as consignee in a non-negotiable document. This is true because the seller by new instractions to the carrier could replace the named consignee with someone else. To protect the buyer or the bank it is therefore necessary that the original instructions from the seller to the carrier to deliver the goods to the named consignee be irrevocable. Second, CIF term can only be used for sea and inland waterway transport. When the ship's rail serves no practical purposes such as in the case of roll-on/roll-off or container traffic, CIP term instead of CIF term is more appropriate to use. Third, the EDI method still contains many legal and technical problems to be solved in order to be used thoroughly' in the international sale of goods. Therefore, the parties wishing to replace the traditional paper-based trade documents by electronic messages must exchange the agreement on EDI each other in order to prevent and sol ye unexpected problems. Forth, it may be that the goods are to be carried in bulk without such marking or naming of consignee as would amount to appropriation. Then the risk will not pass until effective appropriation has been made. Therefore, the seller needs to appropriate by issuing of separate bills of lading or delivery orders for parts of the bulk cargo. And in case the goods are bought while they are carried at sea, some problems on the passing of risk would arise. One possibility is that the buyer might have to assume risks which have already occured at the time when the contract of sale is entered into force. The other possibility would be to let the pissing of the risk concide with the time when the contract of sale is concluded. The parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law and any solution which might follow there form. Finally, Incoterms are restricted to deal with the main principles for the division of functions, costs and risks between the parties and the rest is left to their individual contract as supplemented by the custom of the trade, the individual terms of the contract of sale and the applicable law. Thus, the parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law on their individual contract of sale in order to solve the problems on the transfer of property, the remedy and so on.

• 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.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.

• 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.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.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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.53-74
• /
• 2009

INCOTERMS have been changed almost every 10 years since ICC established INCOTERMS as trade terms for International transaction. Recently transportation has become bigger, and modernized by means of electronic appliances such as RFID, IT, and containerization. FRC, FOR/FOT, FOA were added in INCOTERMS1980 and every conditions are unified into three alphabets in INCOTERMS1990. The best features of INCOTERMS2000 are that FCA substitute FRC, FOR/FOT, FOA and customs formalities were simplified to make clear for each party of contract. It seems that business circles still stick to old customs of their trade like FOB or CIF not only in Korea but in an international practice even though there have been several revisions of INCOTERMS until now. ICC have tried to provide INCOTERMS3000 to solve problems between a theory and an actual condition of international trade. This study has tried to suggest opinions against INCOTERMS3000 and has surveyed a recognition, an actual using situation and issues of INCOTERMS to get improvements. For a recognition of INCOTERMS has been spread as you can find at tables many kinds of business circles still stick to old customs of their trade terms FOB and CIF. Now there are two alternative plans. Firstly, we need to suggest improvements against inconsistency of INCOTERMS to be applied on newly revised INCOTERMS3000 and educating business circles to use proper conditions of INCOTERMS for their doing business. Secondly, we shall participate in revising INCOTERMS to activate multimodal transport conditions of INCOTERMS and provide solutions to fill gap between a theory and an actual condition of international trade. It seems that terms of multimodal transport such as FCA, CPT, or CIP can be a perfect condition for each party of contract. We have examined the inconsistent features of Ship's rail and notions of on board, and observed how to activate multimodal transport terms. These would be hot issues of next revision of INCOTERMS and we provided improvements on each trade terms, THC charges, or others against INCOTERMS.

• 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.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.