国贸实务案例分析CaseStudies.docx

国贸实务案例分析CaseStudies.docx

《国贸实务案例分析CaseStudies.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《国贸实务案例分析CaseStudies.docx（7页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

国贸实务案例分析CaseStudies

CaseStudiesofInternationalTrade

Course:

PracticeofInternationalTradeAdviser:

GaoYanfeng

Grade&Class:

Grade2012Class5

Name:

LiYuanbao

StudentID:

120440502

Date:

20thDecember,2014

CaseStudiesofInternationalTrade

Name:

LiYuanbaoStudentID:

120440502

Case1QualityofGoods

AChineseexportersignedasalescontractwithaEuropeancompanytoexportfivemetrictonsofChinesedates.BoththecontractandtheL/CspecifiedthatthedateswereofGrade3.Whenpreparinggoodsforshipment,thesellerfoundthatGrade3Chinesedateswereoutofstock.Inordertomakedeliveryintime,thesellershippedtheGrade2ChinesedatestothebuyerandindicatedinthecommercialinvoicethattheGrade2ChinesedatesarepricedasperGrade3.

Doyouthinkitisreasonablefortheexportertodoso?

Whatkindofriskistherefortheseller?

译文：

一家中国出口商与一家欧洲出口商签订了一个合同，卖方向买方出口5公吨的红枣。

合同与信用证上明确标注，卖方所提供的是三等的红枣。

当准备货物装运时，卖方发现三等红枣的仓储存货不足。

为了使货物按时到达，卖方将二等红枣配送到给买方，并在商务发票上注明二等红枣的价格与三等红枣一致。

你认为出口方这么做是否合理。

卖方这样做有何风险？

AnalysisonCase1:

AccordingtoUCP500,Article37,thedescriptionofgoodsinthecommercialinvoicesmustcorrespondwiththedescriptionintheCredit.WhatthesellerdidisinconsistentwiththestipulationofUCP.ThebuyerisentitledtorejectthepaymentandthegoodsonthegroundthatthegoodsdeliveredarenotwhatthecontractandL/Crequire.

Ifthemarketchangesorthepricefallsdown,thebuyermaytakethisexcuseforrejectingthegoodsorclaimingcompensationfromtheseller,thoughtthegoodsdeliveredarebetterthanthosestipulatedinthecontract.

Case2QuantityofGoods

AChineseexportcompanyexported1000electricfanstoacountryintheMiddleEast.BoththecontractandL/Cstipulatedthatpartialshipmentwasnotallowed.Whenthefansweretransportedtotheportforshipment,itwasfoundthat40fansweredamagedanditwasimpossibletoreplacethedefectivefansbecauseofthetimefortheshipment.TheconsignorthoughtthataccordingtoUCP5005%moreorlesswasallowediftheamountdidn’texceedtheL/Camountandunder-delivering40fanswasstillwithin5%.Intheend,960fansweredeliveredtotheimporter.Whenthesellersurrenderedtheshippingdocumentstothebankforthenegotiationofpayment,hewasrejectedbythebank.

Wasitreasonableforthebanktodoso?

译文：

一家中国出口公司向位于中东的一个国家出口1000台电风扇。

合同与信用证上都规定了不允许分批运装。

当这批风扇被运送到港口进行装运的时候，发现有40台电风扇有损坏，但由于装运的时间限制，所以无法对残次的风扇进行更换。

发货方认为，根据UCP5005%溢短装条款，如果货物〔电风扇〕的数量不超过信用证上的数量或者少于40台以内的数量，都是在5%的范围内的。

最终，960台风扇被运送到了进口方。

当卖方向银行提交船运文件以商讨款项支付时，银行拒绝了这一请求。

银行这么做合理吗？

AnalysisonCase2:

AccordingtoUCP500,Article39,unlessaCreditstipulatesthatthequantityofthegoodsspecifiedmustnotbeexceededorreduced,atoleranceof5%moreor5%lesswillbepermissible,alwaysprovidedthattheamountofthedrawingsdoesnotexceedtheamountoftheCredit.ThistolerancedoesnotapplywhentheCreditstipulatesthequantityintermsofastatednumberofpackingunitsorindividualitems.Itcanbeseenthatthequantityoffansiscalculatedbynumber.Thesellerisnotallowedtounder-deliver40fans.Instead,hemustdeliverthefullquantitystipulatedintheL/C.Sothebankwasreasonabletorejectthenegotiation.

Case3PackingofCommodity

AChineseimporterpurchasedsomeflammableliquidchemicalrawmaterialfromaFrenchexporter.Whentheshipmentarrivedatthedestination,itwasfoundthattherewasaslightleakagecausedbythedefectinafewpackages.However,theChineseimporterfailedtotakeanymeasurestosavethelossandpreventthedamagefromexpanding.Asaresult,theleakageworsenedafterthewarehousingofthegoodsandledtoaself-ignitedfire.Afterwards,theChineseimporterlodgedaclaimagainsttheFrenchexporterforfullcompensationofthetotalloss,butwasrefused.

译文：

一家中国进口商从法国出口商处进口了一些易燃的化学原材料液体。

货物到港的时候，买方发现由于一些货物的包装有瑕疵，货物出现了轻微的泄露。

然而中国进口方未能采取措施减少损失，也并未采取措施来防止损害的扩大。

结果货物进入仓储仓库后，液体泄漏加剧从而导致了自燃火灾。

事后中国进口商向法国出口商针对所有的损失提出了全部赔偿的索赔要求，但是被法国方拒绝。

AnalysisonCase3:

Inviewofthesituationinthiscase,theChineseimportercouldnotmakeaclaimforthetotalloss.Whilereceivingthegoods,theimporterhadalreadytakenpossessionofthegoods.Besides,withtheawarenessoftheleakageandtheknowledgeaboutthedangeroftheinflammabilityofthegoods,theimportershouldhavetakenreasonableprecautionstopreventtheexpansionofthedamage.Undersuchcircumstances,itwastheimporter’sresponsibilitytoprotectthegoodsandpreventthedamagefromexpanding.Sincethegoods’self-ignitionhadresultedfromtheimporter’sfailuretofulfillsuchresponsibility,theexportershouldnotberesponsiblefortheexpansionofthedamage.AsperCISGArticle86

（1）,“IfthebuyerhasreceivedthegoodsandintendstoexerciseanyrightunderthecontractorthisConventiontorejectthem,hemusttakesuchstepstopreservethemasarereasonableinthecircumstances.Heisentitledtoretainthemuntilhehasbeenreimbursedhisreasonableexpensesbytheseller.”

So,theimporterwasonlyentitledtoclaimthecompensationforthedamagecausedbytheslightleakageinducedbythedeficiencyofthefewpackages,ratherthanclaimthecompensationforthedamageexpandedowingtotheimporter’sfailuretotakeprecautions.Therefore,theFrenchexporterwasjustifiedinrejectingtheclaimmadebytheChineseimporterforthetotalloss.

Case4InternationalTradeTerms

AChineseexportersignedaCFRcontractwithanimporterinAmericaoncannedmeatforanamountofUS$50,000,withpaymentbyD/Patsight.OnthemorningofMay5,2006,thegoodswereallloadedontothenamedvessel.TheChinesesalespersoninchargeofthiscontractwassobusythatheforgottosendthebuyertheshippingadviceuntilthenextmorning.Unexpectedly,whentheAmericanimporterwenttothelocalinsurancecompanytoinsurethegoods,theinsurancecompanyhadalreadylearnedthattheshipsufferedawreckonMay6andrefusedtoinsuretheshipment.TheAmericanimporterimmediatelysentafaxtotheChineseexporterreadingasfollows:

“Owingtoyourdelayedshippingadvice,weareunabletoinsurethegoods.Sincethevesselhasbeendestroyedinawreck,thelossofgoodsshouldbeforyouraccount.Atthesametime,youshouldcompensateourprofitandexpenselosseswhichamounttoUS$50,000”.SoonalltheshippingdocumentssentthroughthecollectingbankwerereturnedtotheChineseexporter,forthereasonthattheimporterrefusedtotakeuptheshippingdocuments.

Whoshouldberesponsibleforthelossandwhy?

译文：

一家中国出口商与一家美国进口商签订了一份按CFR成交的合同，该合同的货物为价值5万美元的肉罐头，付款方式为即期付款交单。

2006年5月5日的早晨，货物已经全部被装载到指定的货船上。

中方负责该笔订单的人员繁忙中未能将发货通知书及时发给买方，直到第二天早晨才将发货通知书发出。

令人意想不到的是，当美国进口方去当地的保险公司为货物投保时，保险公司已得知该艘货船已经在5月6号遭受了沉船事故，因此拒绝对该批货物承保。

美国进口方立即向中方发送了，内容如下：

“由于你方未能及时发送发货通知书，我方无法为本批货物投保。

现在货船由于沉船而损毁，货物损失应由你方负责。

并且你方应当补偿我方的利润与开支损失，共计5万美元。

”不久后，所有的船运单据经过代收银行返回到中国的出口商手里，因为上述的原因，中方拒绝了该付款赎单。

谁该为损失负责？

为什么？

AnalysisonCase4:

UnderCFRterm,alltherisksdutiesandexpensesaftergoods’passingship’srailarenormallybornebythebuyer.Itisprovidedthatthesellermustalsogivethebuyersufficientnoticethatthegoodshavebeendeliveredinordertoallowthebuyertotakemeasureswhicharenormallynecessarytoenablehimtotakethegoods.Underthisterm,thesellermustgivetheshippingnoticeinatimelymannersoastoallowsufficienttimeforthebuyertoeffectinsuranceofthegoods.Inthiscase,itwastheseller’sfailuretosendthe“sufficientnotice”thatledtohislossofbothgoodsandmoney.Ontheotherhand,ifthesellerhadinformedthebuyerimmediatelyaftershippingthegoods,thebuyerwouldhaveinsuredthegoodsintimeatthelocalinsurancecompany.Inthatcase,theinsurancecompanywouldhaveassumeditsliabilityforcompensationeveniftheaccidenthadhappenedpriortothebuyer’seffectinginsurancewhileboththebuyerandtheinsurancecompanywereignorantoftheaccident.ThusitcanbeseenhowimportantitistosendtheshippingadvicetothebuyerintimeunderCFRterms.Thatiswhyshippingadviceisoftenreferredtoas“insurancenotice”intradepractices.

WhenCFRtermsorFOBtermsareusedincombinationwithpaymentbycollection,thesellermaycoverthegoodsagainst“seller’sinterestrisk”beforeexportingthegoodstocounteractthebuyer’sfailuretoeffectinsuranceorthebuyer’srefusaltoretirethedocuments.Hadthesellerinthiscasecoveredtheshipmentagainstthesaidrisk,thelosswouldhavebeensomewhatmitigated.

Case5InternationalCargoTransport

AChinesecompany（CompanyA）signedasalescontractwithaBraziliancompany（CompanyC）.CompanyAentrustedashippingcompany（CompanyB）toshipthe10000sacksofcoffeebeansfromShanghaiPorttoaportinBrazil.CompanyBissuedacleanB/Levidencingthateachsackweights60kgsinapparentgoodcondition.Whenthegoodsarrivedatthedestination,CompanyCfoundthattheweightof600sacksofgoodswas25%lessinquantitythancontractedandthepackageswereloosened.

Therefore,CompanyCsuedCompanyBforthequantitydiscrepancybetweenthedeliveredgoodsandthedescriptionsontheB/L,andaskedCompanyBtocompensatefortheloss.CompanyBlaterprovidedevidencetoprovethattheloosenedpackagesandtheshortweighthadexistedwhenthegoodswereloadedonboard,andthecompanyissuedthecleanB/Lbecauseoffailureincheckingeverypackage.SincethediscrepancyindeliveredquantitywasnotcausedbyCompanyB，thecompanyshouldnotcompensatefortheloss.Investigationalsoconfirmedthattheshortweightof600sackswasnotcausedbythecarrierbutbytheshipper,CompanyA.

WhichpartyshouldcompensateCompanyC?

Givereasonsto