Case 1:

Case introduction

In 2002, an import and export company in China exported a batch of non-edible corn to Brazil. According to the contract, the quality is marketable, the purity is 98%, the impurity is less than 2%, the mode of transportation is by sea, and the mode of payment is D/A of time draft, which gives the other party certain financial convenience. When the goods arrived at the buyer two months after the contract came into effect, the buyer refused to accept the goods on the grounds that the local inspection certificate proved that the quality of the goods was lower than the original contract and the total number of Aspergillus flavus exceeded the standard. After verification, the quality of the original goods did not hinder its sales, and the other party's breach of contract was mainly due to the decline in market prices at that time. After many negotiations, we completed the contract by reducing the price by 30%.

case analysis

It is not difficult to see from the above cases that the export company clearly knows the existence of the risk clause, but underestimates the risk, and is still lucky. In order to promote the success of the transaction, it is easy to jump into the trap set by the other party. Therefore, only by grasping the "risk clause". Only in this way can we grasp the business opportunities and be in an invincible position in the business war.

In this case, the terms and quality of payment are very risky for exporters.

In terms of quality, although it is difficult to accurately grasp the quality of agricultural products when stocking, "marketable quality" is used as a supplement, and the terms of quality increase or decrease are not used to specify the treatment methods when the quality is inconsistent to varying degrees. In addition, corn itself is easy to breed Aspergillus flavus, and long-term transportation will accelerate its growth. For this foreseeable but inevitable situation, there is no explanation in the quality clause, which provides the other party with the opportunity to reject the goods.

In terms of payment, D/A and cash on delivery are widely used in the trade between China and South America, but they pay too much attention to the establishment of contracts. The risk is extremely high, and it is particularly easy to be used maliciously by the other party. When the market form is unfavorable to it, the buyer often refuses to accept the goods or greatly lowers the price on the grounds of other terms. This case is a typical case of malicious use of "soft terms".

So, how to avoid risks?

In the negotiation of international trade contracts, the conclusion of terms will directly affect the interests of buyers and sellers. In specific trade, we should try to avoid "risk clauses" that are prone to disputes. Grasping the terms reasonably and avoiding risks to the maximum extent is the key to the success or failure of signing a contract.

Case 2

An exporter in China wants to trade a batch of goods with an importer in Canada at a price of 800 Canadian dollars per metric ton CIF Quebec. The contract stipulates: shipment in June+February, 65438, payment by sight letter of credit. Q: Is the condition of "65438+February shipment" acceptable?

Comment: The condition of "65438+February shipment" is unacceptable. Reason: Quebec, located on the east coast of Canada, is a seasonal frozen port. Therefore, June+February shipment in 5438 is unacceptable.

Case 3

A China enterprise exported a batch of fabrics to western Europe. After the goods arrived at the destination port, the buyer put the cloth into mass production without inspection because of the peak season of purchase and sale. A few months later, the buyer sent several sets of different styles of clothes, claiming that the clothes made of the fabric we exported were seriously shrunk and it was difficult to put them on the market, so he filed a claim with us. Q: Should we make a claim? Why?

Comments:

1. Insufficient evidence for claim. At that time, the cloth was purchased, but the inspection certificate issued by the inspection agency was used as evidence, not the clothes made.

2. The claim time has exceeded the claim period. In this case, a few months after receiving the goods, this is not a reasonable time.

Case 4

An export company in Shanghai exports a batch of soybeans. According to the contract, each metric ton is US$ 65,438+080, * * is 65,438+0,000 metric tons, and the specified quantity can be increased or decreased by 65,438+00%. The amount stipulated in the letter of credit issued from abroad is $65,438+080,000. Q: How many goods can a Shanghai company ship without being refused payment when negotiating with the bank against documents? Why?

Remarks: The shippable quantity that Shanghai Company will not refuse to pay when negotiating with the bank against documents is180000/180 =1000 metric tons. The reason is that when the letter of credit is used as the payment method, the bank negotiation is limited to the amount stipulated in the letter of credit, otherwise it will be rejected. In this case, although the quantity stipulated in the contract can be increased or decreased by 65,438+00%, that is, the seller can deliver 900 ~ 65,438+065,438+000 metric tons, but the amount stipulated in the letter of credit issued by the buyer is 65,438+080,000 US dollars, that is, the amount has no corresponding maneuvering scope, so we can ship at most 60,000 tons.

Case 5

Our company imported 6000 sets of Eagle clothing from a Korean manufacturer, and the delivery date was the end of 65438+February 2005. The factory is out of stock. In August 2005, the factory was ready to put into production. Due to the shortage of funds, the assembly line necessary for the production of clothing was not purchased. In September, 2005, factory workers began to demand higher wages, and then they went on strike for two months. According to the production capacity of this factory, it is obviously impossible to produce 6000 sets of clothes in the remaining time. Q: What should we do?

Comments: In this case, we have two measures to deal with the seller's breach of contract:

1. Give the ROK a reasonable time to deliver the goods and lodge a claim.

2. Terminate the contract and claim at the same time.