Case Studies of International TradeCourse: Practice of International TradeAdviser: Gao YanfengGrade&Class: Grade 2012 Class 5Name: Li YuanbaoStudent ID: 120440502Date: 20th December, 2014Case Studies of International TradeName: Li Yuanbao Student ID: 120440502 Case 1 Quality of GoodsA Chinese exporter signed a sales contract with a European company to export five metric tons of Chinese dates. Both the contract and the L/C specified that the dates were of Grade 3. When preparing goods for shipment, the seller found that Grade 3 Chinese dates were out of stock. In order to make delivery in time, the seller shipped the Grade 2 Chinese dates to the buyer and indicated in the commercial invoice that the Grade 2 Chinese dates are priced as per Grade 3.Do you think it is reasonable for the exporter to do so? What kind of risk is there for the seller?译文：一家中国出口商与一家欧洲出口商签订了一个合同，卖方向买方出口5公吨的红枣。
合同与信用证上明确标注，卖方所提供的是三等的红枣。
当准备货物装运时，卖方发现三等红枣的仓储存货不足。
为了使货物按时到达，卖方将二等红枣配送到给买方，并在商务发票上注明二等红枣的价格与三等红枣一致。
你认为出口方这么做是否合理。
卖方这样做有何风险？Analysis on Case 1:According to UCP500, Article 37, the description of goods in the commercial invoices must correspond with the description in the Credit. What the seller did is inconsistent with the stipulation of UCP. The buyer is entitled to reject the payment and the goods on the ground that the goods delivered are not what the contract and L/C require.If the market changes or the price falls down, the buyer may take this excuse for rejecting the goods or claiming compensation from the seller, thought the goods delivered are better than those stipulated in the contract.Case 2 Quantity of GoodsA Chinese export company exported 1 000 electric fans to a country in the Middle East. Both the contract and L/C stipulated that partial shipment was not allowed. When the fans were transported to the port for shipment, it was found that 40 fans were damaged and it was impossible to replace the defective fans because of the time for the shipment. The consignor thought that according to UCP500 5% more or less was allowed if the amount didn’t exceed the L/C amount and under-delivering 40 fans was still within 5%. In the end, 960 fans were delivered to the importer. When the seller surrendered the shipping documents to the bank for the negotiation of payment, he was rejected by the bank.Was it reasonable for the bank to do so?译文：一家中国出口公司向位于中东的一个国家出口1000 台电风扇。
合同与信用证上都规定了不允许分批运装。
当这批风扇被运送到港口进行装运的时候，发现有40台电风扇有损坏，但由于装运的时间限制，所以无法对残次的风扇进行更换。
发货方认为，根据UCP 500 5%溢短装条款，如果货物（电风扇）的数量不超过信用证上的数量或者少于40台以内的数量，都是在5%的范围内的。
最终，960台风扇被运送到了进口方。
当卖方向银行提交船运文件以商讨款项支付时，银行拒绝了这一请求。
银行这么做合理吗？According to UCP500, Article 39, unless a Credit stipulates that the quantity of the goods specified must not be exceeded or reduced, a tolerance of 5% more or 5% less will be permissible, always provided that the amount of the drawings does not exceed the amount of the Credit. This tolerance does not apply when the Credit stipulates the quantity in terms of a stated number of packing units or individual items. It can be seen that the quantity of fans is calculated by number. The seller is not allowed to under-deliver 40 fans. Instead, he must deliver the full quantity stipulated in the L/C. So the bank was reasonable to reject the negotiation.Case 3 Packing of CommodityA Chinese importer purchased some flammable liquid chemical raw material from a French exporter. When the shipment arrived at the destination, it was found that there was a slight leakage caused by the defect in a few packages. However, the Chinese importer failed to take any measures to save the loss and prevent the damage from expanding. As a result, the leakage worsened after the warehousing of the goods and led to a self-ignited fire. Afterwards, the Chinese importer lodged a claim against the French exporter for full compensation of the total loss, but was refused.译文：一家中国进口商从法国出口商处进口了一些易燃的化学原材料液体。
货物到港的时候，买方发现由于一些货物的包装有瑕疵，货物出现了轻微的泄露。
然而中国进口方未能采取措施减少损失，也并未采取措施来防止损害的扩大。
结果货物进入仓储仓库后，液体泄漏加剧从而导致了自燃火灾。
事后中国进口商向法国出口商针对所有的损失提出了全部赔偿的索赔要求，但是被法国方拒绝。
In view of the situation in this case, the Chinese importer could not make a claim for the total loss. While receiving the goods, the importer had already taken possession of the goods. Besides, with the awareness of the leakage and the knowledge about the danger of the inflammability of the goods, the importer should have taken reasonable precautions to prevent the expansion of the damage. Under such circumstances, it was the importer’s responsibility to protect the goods and prevent the damage from expanding. Since the goods’ self-ignition had resulted from the importer’s failure to fulfill such responsibility,the exporter should not be responsible for the expansion of the damage. As per CISG Article 86 (1), “If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. He is entitled to retain them until he has been reimbursed his reasonable expe nses by the seller.”So, the importer was only entitled to claim the compensation for the damage caused by the slight leakage induced by the deficiency of the few packages, rather than claim the compensation for the damage expanded owing to the importer’s failure to take precautions. Therefore, the French exporter was justified in rejecting the claim made by the Chinese importer for the total loss.Case 4 International Trade TermsA Chinese exporter signed a CFR contract with an importer in America on canned meat for an amount of US$ 50, 000, with payment by D/P at sight. On the morning of May 5, 2006, the goods were all loaded onto the named vessel. The Chinesesalesperson in charge of this contract was so busy that he forgot to send the buyer the shipping advice until the next morning. Unexpectedly, when the American importer went to the local insurance company to insure the goods, the insurance company had already learned that the ship suffered a wreck on May 6 and refused to insure the shipment. The American importer immediately sent a fax to the Chinese exporter reading as follows: “Owing to your delayed shipping advice, we are unable to insure the goods. Since the vessel has been destroyed in a wreck, the loss of goods should be for your account. At the same time, you should compensate our profit and expense losses which amount to US$ 50, 000”. Soon all the shipping documents sent through the collecting bank were returned to the Chinese exporter, for the reason that the importer refused to take up the shipping documents.Who should be responsible for the loss and why?译文：一家中国出口商与一家美国进口商签订了一份按CFR成交的合同，该合同的货物为价值5万美元的肉罐头，付款方式为即期付款交单。