LAW OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE - Essay Example

are deemed to be non-conforming, whether in terms of type or condition, the buyer has the right to sue and, on that basis, reject the goods.3 This is also emphasised in SOGA (1979) 14.2A and 14.2B, where the buyer is required to supply goods which meet the contractual description and which are in such a condition as would allow the buyer to use them for the purpose for which he purchased them.4 Articles 15(A) and 15(B) further defines the delivery of defective goods as a breach of contract which entitles the buyer to repudiate the contract.

5 However, the circumstances of this particular case suggest that Sweet cannot be held liable for breach of contract while the carrier most likely can be. According to the facts of the case, Sweet delivered the shipper conforming goods. He further satisfied the reminder of his CIF obligations to the buyer, by insuring the goods, arranging for their delivery to the port agreed upon, providing the buyer with a reasonable delivery time,6 arranging for custom clearance and sending Baxwell the requisite documents.

These are the obligations which a seller must satisfy as per both CIF and FOB terms.7 Just as CIF and FOB terms impose certain obligations upon the seller, they are equally articulate in their definition of the buyer’s obligations. Assuming that the seller has fulfilled his obligations, both CIF and FOB terms further stipulate that even if the goods are damaged, or lost, the buyer is obligated to pay for them and to accept delivery of goods at the port of destination.8 Therefore, as far as the case at hand is concerned, Baxwell is obliged to accept the documents, take delivery of the goods and satisfy his financial obligations towards Sweet.

As established in Kwei Tek Chao (t/a Zung Fu Co) v British Traders Shippers Ltd (1954)9 the buyer can only repudiate the sale of goods contract and reject delivery of goods if the goods which the seller supplied were non-conforming, in type, condition or quality and not if