The Importance of C.I.F Contracts-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Questions: 1.Samantha approached Sophie about having received the wrong diaries. Sophies view is that this is a minor breach on her part as there is a ready market for the goods. Sophie then, has taken the view that Samantha should just resell the academic diaries and leave Sophie alone. Advise Samantha what course of action she can take. 2.Advise Miriam whether she has any claim, and against whom, for the loss and damage to her diaries. 3.David wishes to reject all of the books as there is now little interest in political debate or reading. Sophie has said that he may only reject those that do not comply with the contract. Is this correct? David seeks your advice on this issue. 4.If Samantha had known that the diaries in one container were the wrong ones, would she have been entitled to reject the documents when Sophie presented them to her. Answers: 1.It is worth mentioning the importance of C.I.F contracts which acts as a contract of sale between the seller and the purchaser. It is noteworthy to mention here that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992has provided certain rights to the consignee of a bill of lading regarding the contract of carriage of goods. However, Section 2(1) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992 provided the fact that the person possessing rights under the Act also possesses certain liabilities[1]. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the fact that if a person is not entitled to rights under Section 2 (1) of the COGSA Act 1992 then he is not entitled to the liabilities under the said contract. However, it is necessary that both the buyer and his representative should make themselves liable for the contract according to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the COGSA Act 1992[2]. It is important that the demand made by the carrier regarding the goods has to be the same goods for the purpose of making him li able. In such cases, the buyers are not at the liability if the goods as damaged by any kind. The buyer is at the authority to claim damages regarding the goods in relation to which the bill of lading has been issued. In this way the liabilities in the contract of carriage can be incurred. In The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 39[3] it was held that the goods that has been demanded by the buyer must be same after delivery. It was also held that the demand for delivery of goods shall be considered if the goods were at the same condition at the time of loading into the ship. In the present case study it can be observed that Sophie entered into a contract of sale with Samantha that was based on C.I.F terms. However, a bill of lading has been issued in the name of Samanthas company in the relevant consigned boxes. Therefore, it can be advised to Samantha that she can sue Sophie for breach of contract as the goods delivered to her were not same as it was before. Therefore Samantha is at the authority to sue Sophie for breach of contract according to the terms based on the C.I.F contract. 2.It is noteworthy to mention here that in a C.I.F contract, the bill of lading acts as evidence. However, the bill of lading do not form a complete contract between the buyer and the purchaser, it only acts as evidence. It was held in Ss Ardennes v ss Ardennes [1951] 1KB 55[4] that a bill of lading acts as an evidence in contract of carriage of goods. In this case it was observed that an oral agreement took place between the shipper and the owners of the ship for the purpose of proceeding directly to the port destination. In this regard, the conditions of the Bill of Lading incorporated a clause which facilitated the ships to provide stoppage at different ports before ending at the actual destination. Therefore, it was held by the Court that the Bill of Lading could be varied through oral undertaking. However, in some cases the bill of lading acts as a contract between the buyer and the carrier and not just mere evidence. This is due to the reason that the buyer shall not have any k nowledge regarding the oral contracts agreed between the shipper and carrier. Therefore, it was held in Leduc Co v Ward[5]that terms of agreement exemplified by the bill of lading are conclusive in nature and therefore no evidence can be introduced in order to contravene them. In this regard, it can be stated that Bills of Lading Act 1985 provided the buyer and the consignee with the right to sue in consideration of the goods according to the particulars of the contract incorporated in the Bill of Lading[6]. Therefore, in the present case study it can be observed that on inspection Miriam found that her diaries were damaged because of the container and also due to the reason that they were not stored properly. In this situation, Miriam has an opportunity to sue against the Best Carriers as they were responsible for the carriage of the containers. Therefore, Miriam can claim for damages against the Best Carriers for her loss based on the evidence of the bills of lading which was accepted by her upon receiving the container. 3.A buyer possesses the right to reject the goods as well as the documents and can even terminate the contract if there is a breach of contract on the part of the seller in the field of international sale of goods. According to the provisions of Section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a buyer possesses the right to reject the goods and terminate the contract if the seller fails to fulfill the conditions depicted in the contract. However, according to Section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the buyer is not at the responsibility to return the goods after rejecting the goods[7]. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that a contract of sale is accompanied by various documents and among them the bills of lading are utmost important. However, in the field of sale of documents which takes place through C.I.F contracts there arise two kinds of rights- one relating to goods and other relating to documents. However, in certain cases, the buyer may lose the right to deny the goo ds if the documents related to them were already accepted by him. In Panchaud Frres v. General Grain[8], it was observed that there was an involvement of C.I.F contracts which stated that certain goods were supposed to be shipped in July. However, in August, the goods were shipped. In this regard, a bill of lading was tendered by the sellers which states that the goods were shipped on July. The buyer accepted the documents without noticing the problem but later rejected the goods when he found a delay in the shipment. In this case, it was held by the Court that the buyer does not have the right to reject the goods as the relevant documents were already accepted by him. Therefore, in the present case study it can be stated that David may only reject those documents which do not abide by the contract as he has already accepted the relevant documents. Therefore, David cannot reject the goods as he has already accepted the documents. 4.According to the provisions of Section 14(2b) of the Sale of Goods Act 1994, a consumer possesses the right to refuse goods and can even claim refund if the condition of the goods received were defective[9]. In Kwei Tek Tek Chao v British Traders Shippers Ltd[10] it was held that a buyer has a right to reject his goods based on the documents provided at the time of purchase. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that the right to reject the documents and the right to reject the goods are separate. The buyer possesses the right to reject the documents, if he believes that the goods provided are unsatisfactory. In this regard, the bill of lading plays an important role in acknowledging the receipt of shipment of goods. The bill of lading is supposed to be clean and must describe the real value of the goods without mentioning any false promise. Therefore in the present case study, it can be stated that if Samantha had an idea that the diaries provided to her were wrong then she acquired the right to reject the relevant documents presented to her by Sophie at the time of purchase. Bibliography: Chianale, Angelo. "The CISG as a Model Law: A Comparative Law Approach."Sing. J. Legal Stud.(2016): 29. Jiang, Tianyi, and Zhen Jing. "Shipper's Title to Sue After the Transfer of the Bill of Lading-A Comparative Study for the Reform of Chinese Maritime Law."Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce48.2 (2017): 155. Kwei Tek Tek Chao v British Traders Shippers Ltd[1954] 2 QB 459. Leduc Co v Ward (1888) 20 QBD 475. Loke, Alexander FH. "The lemon law and the integrated enhancement of consumer rights in Singapore."Sing. J. Legal Stud.(2014): 285. Magashi, Awwal Ilyas, and Abdulrashid Lawan Haruna. "Revisiting Freedom of Contract in the Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules: Service Contracts in Disguise?."IIUM Law Journal24.1 (2016): 233. Panchaud Freres SA v Establissments General Grain Co [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep 53. Ss Ardennes v ss Ardennes [1951] 1KB 55. The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 39. Yussof, Badrah Binti, and Mohamed Daud. "Ocean carriage-what constitutes seaworthiness."Journal of Science Technology and Humanities1.1 (2015): 47-52. Yussof, Badrah Binti, and Mohamed Daud. "Ocean carriage-what constitutes seaworthiness."Journal of Science Technology and Humanities1.1 (2015): 47-52. Magashi, Awwal Ilyas, and Abdulrashid Lawan Haruna. "Revisiting Freedom of Contract in the Contract of Carriage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules: Service Contracts in Disguise?."IIUM Law Journal24.1 (2016): 233. [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep 39. [1951] 1KB 55. (1888) 20 QBD 475. Jiang, Tianyi, and Zhen Jing. "Shipper's Title to Sue After the Transfer of the Bill of Lading-A Comparative Study for the Reform of Chinese Maritime Law."Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce48.2 (2017): 155. Loke, Alexander FH. "The lemon law and the integrated enhancement of consumer rights in Singapore."Sing. J. Legal Stud.(2014): 285. [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep 53. Chianale, Angelo. "The CISG as a Model Law: A Comparative Law Approach."Sing. J. Legal Stud.(2016): 29. [1954] 2 QB 459.