Download file to see previous pages...
is put at 6% works out to a staggering figure of the US$ 420 million per year3 A bulk of this amount represents cost of using the documentary letter of credit. About 30 % of the import trade of the U.S. is paid through this letter of credit mode.4 The percentage of six as the transaction cost is not a small amount. Major portion of this cost is attributed to the return or refusal of the bankers involved at various stages of the routing of the documents from the importing end to the exporting end for reasons of accompanying documents not complying with the descriptions stipulated in the governing letters of credit. Although the ICC 5 sponsored UCP 5006 of 1993 governing the handling of the letter of credit during the course of transactions between the importers and exporters has recently been simplified by the UCP 600 7 in 2007 for hassle free transactions, it is still inadequate to keep pace with the fast paced transactions in the wake of electronic commerce that has emerged during the last few decades. This paper seeks to highlight the various legal barriers that parties involved have to face in the documentation of the international trade, different modes of payments in practice including the documentary letter of credit and justify the need for a more favourable climate for documentation which can be more aptly called as negotiation of documents for collection of payments for goods and services supplied in the course of international trade.
This is the predominant type of mode of payment for international transactions for goods and services which the UCP 600 (formerly UCP 500) is entirely devoted to. The payment is collected through the party usually a bank or two corresponding banks trusted by the buyer and seller. The buyer’s bank is the issuing bank and the seller’s bank is the confirming bank. Since the buyer and seller come from different legal jurisdictions banks are invariably different enjoying the confidence of the respective sides i.e the buyer
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS ( INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW) Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1561336-international-contracts-international-trade-law
(INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS ( INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW) Essay)
“INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS ( INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW) Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1561336-international-contracts-international-trade-law.
The risk of loss rules determines whether the seller may still recover for the price of the goods or whether the buyer must pay for the goods and take delivery, despite the fact that the goods are totally destroyed.
The NASS on the other hand is involved in the reselling of quality speakers after it has imported them. The ECOs of the companies had reached an agreement that MSC would supply NASS with about 10,000 units of high quality speakers in a period of 60 days, from 15, Feb 2012.
A clearly written contract is essential for the minimization of misunderstanding. The contract needs to be set out in a way that covers delivery point; the party is responsible for the goods at every stage, customs clearance, and the required insurance.
The rods were indeed shipped on 10th September 2008 on board The Samba Carnival a ship chartered by Amazona Ltd from the shipowner, Pacific Liners Inc. and Segal had prepared a bill of lading for the Master of the Samba Carnival to sign but unfortunately the date was incorrectly recorded as 11th September 2008.
Both laws also define the liabilities, duties and rights of the three parties in maritime trade i.e. shipper, the common carrier and the consignee. Both set up international rules for the carriage of goods by sea for the purpose of regulating maritime activities and resolving maritime disputes between the aforesaid parties.
Two such extremely laws or rules are the Hamburg Rules and the Hague Visby Rules for the carriage of goods by sea. (Deb, iv)
Similarly under the Scope of Coverage the Hamburg Rules covers the period during which the carrier is in charge of the goods at the port of loading, during the carriage, and at the port of discharge.
However, the fact that B contracted directly with the carrier, C, and the damage occurred during transport, changes the situation and passage of risk, as implied by S, is applicable here.
B contracted directly with C and while this does not necessarily establish passage of risk, in this particular case it does.
Article 35 of the Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nation Convention, and Sale of Goods Act (1979) 13.1, wherein it is clearly stated that the seller must provide the buyer with goods which “correspond with the description.”2 In instances where
In this case, Sammy bought 1000 tons of sugar from the shipper and three bills of lading were issued to “Samson or assigns”. Sammy decided to put up for sale of the 1000 tons of sugar to Benny and he provided Benny the first bills of lading. After that Sammy creates