• 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.13
• /
• pp.257-281
• /
• 2000

The world economy is becoming increasingly globalized. The globalization has resulted in far reaching agreements to deepen trade liberalization and enlarge its scope to cover new areas in addition to strengthening its supporting institutional base. Economic growth has developed international trade which has accelerated the development of international carriage of goods in 21st century. The international trade is basically founded on the contract of international sale of goods and backed up by the contract of international carriage of goods and the insurance on the goods carried. It is essential to incorporate each other sections for the efficient development of international trade. As a result of rapid expansion of international carriage of goods, rationalization of transport was required, which has brought about the International Multimodal Transport System through containerization. The approach to liability system will be a right way to solve the insurance problems for the development and enlargement of world trade volume. International multimodal transport system has affected international trade a lot, especially the field of insurance a grate deal. This paper is to analyze contents of liability system on Multimodal Transport with in the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2007

As we know, D-terms which are constituted with DAF delivered the goods in a border place, DES delivered the goods on board a vessel at a vessel specified port on the buyer's side, DEQ delivered the goods on the quay on the buyer's side as the specified place, DDU and DDP delivered the good at the stipulated place at the agreed place or point, mean arrival contracts. DAF is designed mainly for railway carriage, DES and DEQ are designed mainly for vessel shipment, DDU and DDP are designed mainly for multimodal transportation. In spite of their original purpose of revision. They have in themselves many problems on notable points on application in practice. Therefore, in order to magnify their use, through revision of Incoterms, DAF is restricted to railway carriage, DES and DEQ are restricted to be used only for charter shipments. Particularly transport documents which seller should supply the buyer with under DDU and DDP are documents for ownership and possession rights to the goods loaded when executed in negotiable form like as CIF.

• 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.47
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.25 no.3
• /
• pp.269-281
• /
• 2001

Along with the development of marine transport, there emerged the concept of actual carrier. Actual carrier is a special subject in marine cargo transportation. The provisions regarding actual carriers have first been established in the Hamburg Rules and are introduced into the Maritime Code of PRC(hereinafter called the Code). But in China, because of different opinions in the legal interpretation of actual carriers, there is much divergence in practice. The purpose of this paper is to make a study on the definition of the actual carrier, the identity of the actual carrier and the liabilities of the actual carrier in the Code.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2000

Incoterms mean the ICC official rules for the interpretation of trade terms which facilitate the conduct of international trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, Incoterms has been revised successively to adapt them to contemporary commercial practice. In particularly, substantive changes in Incoterms 2000 have been made in two areas: (i) the customs clearance under FAS and DEQ; and (ii) the loading and unloading obligations under FCA. But it should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to the contract of sale and not apply to the contracts of carriage, insurance and financing. Moreover, merchants wishing to use Incoterms 2000 should clearly specify that their contract is governed by 'Incoterms 2000'. It is particularly important to note that Incoterms are not dealt with a great number of problems, such as transfer of property rights, breaches of contract and exemptions from liability. Therefore, the contracting parties should clearly agree to the applicable law related their contract of sale, like the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.85-109
• /
• 2010

L/C provides the exporter and the importer with safe assurance in the exchange of goods for payment in international trade. It involves a number of parties. Although the parties may have confidence in their client, bad faith or ignorance of international banking practice by any of these parties could cause the failure of transaction, which makes international trade a risky business. Most of the risks are found in transport document, which can cause disputes. There are many factors in the risk of transport documents under L/C transaction. One most common risk factor for the beneficiary in all transport documents is even if there is no discrepancy in document, the issuing bank or the applicant refuses to pay or delay payment insisting there is a discrepancy. In some very rare cases, the beneficiary may not get paid due to unfair injunction of the local court of the applicant. For the applicant, most common risk factors are fake bill and fraud. Risks classified according to the sorts of transport documents are as follows. 1. In B/L, payment can be refused because it is regarded as charter party B/L, although there is no real charter party contract. And the applicant can bear the potential risk of the loss or deterioration of cargo through transhipment of the cargo loaded on board in container if transhipment is prohibited without excluding of UCP 600 article 20 (c). 2. In charter party B/L, the applicant may take delivery without paying when charter party B/L is signed by charterer, which can result in a big loss for the beneficiary and the negotiating bank. And risks may arise when cargo is seized because the charterer does not pay the hire. The applicant and the issuing bank are also vulnerable to a risk - Against whom should they file a suit when cargo gets damaged during transportation? 3. In multimodal transport document, which is subject to a conflict because there is a big difference in viewpoints between transport industry and banks, conflicts may also arise when L/C requires ocean B/L and accepts multimodal transport document at the same time, but does not specify the details. 4. In air waybill, where the consignee is not the issuing bank but the applicant, risks may take place to the beneficiary when the applicant takes delivery but refuses to pay asserting minor discrepancies in document. The applicant may also bear the risk when cargo may not be loaded because air waybill is a received bill. Another risk may arise when although the applicant prohibits transhipment without excluding UCP 600 article 23 (c), the cargo may be transhipped, provided that the entire carriage is covered by one and the same air waybill.