International Trade Law for Vienna Convention- myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theInternational Trade Law for Vienna Convention. Answer: Facts In the Scenario, Cherry Cherries PL enters a contract for sale with fresh fruit importers who are based in Singapore. The contract provides that the goods will be shipped, and they will arrive in Singapore in less than two weeks. The cherries are loaded to the Keraisa by 30th of November. But keraisa agreed to ship mangoes for another company, who arrive late and it takes time to clear at the port. They hope to arrive at Singapore port by 15th of December and set sail on 3rd of December. One of the refrigeration units is powered off when the generators are blown by the storm. The main generators have been efficient, that no one has ever bothered to fix the backup generators. The keraisa finally limps the port of Singapore in the 19th of December with a quarter of the cherries having not been refrigerated for our days. They are below premium quality but still edible. It takes three days to clear at the port in Singapore; hence the cherries are not available until the 22nd of December. CCPL considers delay to be FFIL's fault for not making proper arrangement with the customs clearance. The Vienna convention International Sale of Goods Act 198 application in the contract for sale and Carriage. The Vienna Convention on International Sale of Goods 1980 In Article 1 of the convention provides the scope as parties contracting from different states. The convention applies to sale of goods contracts. The convention excludes sales services or sales to consumers'. The convention applies to contracts concluded after offer and acceptance. Just like the above agreement, both parties reach an agreement for sale[1]. Article 6 (1)[2] asserts that risk passes to the buyer when they take control of the goods[3] or when they take possession of the goods. In the above scenario, the risk is passed when the goods are loaded to the Keraisa on 30th of November. The first risk passes as soon as the commodities are accepted. In a situation where the buyer does not take delivery on the accepted date but goods were delivered, risk passes to the buyer[4]. In the scenario above, as much as the goods are not shipped immediately due to the delays due to the mangoes' shipment, the risk already passed. Similarly, when the goods arrive at the port, the risk further passes to FFIL, because they were responsible for ensuring clearance was made as early as possible. FFIL did not make such arrangements, and delays further occurred. 6 (2) [5]provides that risk is passed when its time for delivery. Most of the time risk passes when goods are the buyer's possession, in this case, FFIL. In the above scenario, CCPL wants to recover the $75000 it has lost from either of the parties. This loss can be attributed to the spoilt cherries. We see negligence largely on the part of the FAEE, one for delaying the shipment to 3rd of December and for not ensuring their refrigeration was properly maintained. The risk Passes to them when they take possession of the goods, and they do not take due diligence to ensure the cherries are not spoilt. of the shipment is rejected by FFIL because they were not of premium quality. The shipment arrives with the quarter already spoilt, which is not FFIL's fault but rather spoilt due to lack of refrigeration for four days. FAEE could be solely liable for the damages if the rejected is due to lack of refrigeration. However, if CCPL proves that the three-day delay affected the cherries, they FFIL can be liable to pay to the extent of their contribution to the negligence. However, from the facts, we can see that FAEE are mostly negligent, and they are the ones who should be held liable for damages, for the 3day delay and not properly maintaining the necessary pieces of equipment to ensure proper storage on transit. FAEE should be held liable. CIF Incoterms 2010 on the responsibilities of the parties The CIF Incoterms require that the seller covers their freight by insuring it by at least 110%[6]. The CIF covers the risk, pricing and leveraging responsibility in the agreement. CIF is also used in sea freight which is not in a container. The Incoterms require that the seller delivers the good to the vessel and covers the risks during carriage. Such risks include losses or damages. The buyer's responsibility is to import and export clearance[7]. Based on the CIF Incoterms responsibilities, the risks passed on during shipment will be covered by the insurance company; however, because the buyer is not diligent on clearance FFIL could be liable for damages. If the spoiling of the cherries is attributed to the process of shipment, the risk will be covered by the insurance hence the insurance might pay for the $75000. What role do the Amended Hague Rules (as per COGSA 1991 (Cth) Australia) have the problem? The Hague rules apply to this contract because it applies to contracts of carriage by sea. It applies to contracts from any part of Australia to other parts of Australia. It applies only to carriages covered under the bill lading according to Article 1 (b)[8]. The bill of lading is evidence that the shipper received the goods. Article 3 (1) of the Act requires that the shipper exercises due diligence to ensure that the ship is seaworthy and appropriately eqquiped. The shipper is also required to cool chambers and where goods are carried is properly maintained and suitable for carriage. The carrier on part 2 of the article is required to properly load and discharge the goods. Article 3 (8) [9]provides that agreements' made to discharge the carrier from liability due to negligent is null and void. The section further provides that if there is insurance which benefits the carrier, shall relieve the carrier from liability. If damage or loss is cause sea unworthiness, the carrier or the s hip should not be held liable according to Article 4. With the Hague rules, ignoring the insurance, the carriers are liable due to negligence[10]. Despite the fact that the failure of a refrigerator was caused by the storm which affected the generator, they still did not take adequate steps to ensure refrigerators were working. They did not properly maintain the spare generator to ensure that incase of failure the other one is used. They did not exhaust their resources to ensure that all parts of the carriage were safe and fit for carriage of goods. Therefore, in the absence of insurance claims, the Carriers are liable for the losses incurred when of the cherries are spoilt. How the parties can resolve the dispute When the Vienna convention is applied, the aggrieved party in this case due to a fundamental breach can seek specific damages for the 75,000 from FFIL and FAEE in proportions to their contribution to the losses. When CIF Incoterms are used to distribute costs, then CCPL can claim damages for risk from the insurer for the $75, 000. However, when the Hague rules are applied in absence of the insurance, the carriers will be liable to pay for th $75,000. This is because ethe hagure rules hold the carriers liable for negligence[11]. Bibliography Articles/Books/Reports Bianca, Cesare Massimo, Michael Joachim Bonell, and J. Barrera Graf.Commentary on the International Sales Law: The 1980 Vienna Sales Convention. Giuffr, 1987. Burnett, Robin, and Vivienne Bath.Law of international business in Australasia. Federation Press, 2009. Fawcett, James, Jonathan Harris, and Michael Bridge. "International sale of goods in the conflict of laws."OUP Catalogue(2005). Gillies, Peter, and Gabril Moens.International Trade Business Law Policy. Routledge, 1998. John Livermore.Transport law in Australia. Kluwer Law International, 2011. Malbon, Justin, and Bernard Bishop.Australian Export. Cambridge University Press, 2014. Yancey, Benjamin W. "Carriage of Goods: Hague, Cogsa, Visby, and Hamburg."Tul. L. Rev.57 (1982): 1238. Legislation Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1991, Amended Hague Rules (as per COGSA 1991) Treaties The Vienna Convention on The International Sale of Goods, opened for signature on 11 of April 1980, (entered into force on 1 January 1988). Other Cost Insurance and Freight (CIF) incoterms 2010.