International Trade Contracts Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

International Trade Contracts - Essay Example As noted by Hannold, both English law and the CISG maintain that if a sales contract stipulates that the seller deliver the goods to the carrier or buyer at a specific location and time, and if the goods are delivered in the required condition, risk of damage passes from the seller to either the buyer or the carrier (depending on whom they were delivered to).2 In this case, and as is evident from the fact that B contracted directly with C, with S being responsible for the delivery of the wine to C at a specified place (quayside) the risk of damaged passed from S to C. In other words, as per both English law and the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods, B cannot sue S who rightly claimed that his responsibility ended at the quayside. While B cannot sue S, he is entitled to sue C. The validation of the aforementioned assertion necessitates a brief review of relevant CIF terms, English law and case law. In accordance with the CIF contractual matrix, and as further supported by the laws governing marine transport and insurance, inclusive within the parameters of contracts for the maritime transport of goods is a guarantee that the goods will be delivered in the condition that they were originally delivered to the carrier in. In further guarantee of the stated, and as established by both English law and CIF terms, an insurance policy covering the economic value of the transported goods is included within such contracts.3 In direct reference to B's case, the implication here is that upon his entrance into contract with C for the delivery of the wine, and given that the assumption here is that S delivered them to C in the required condition, C is liable for the damages. The fact that B is entitled to hold C liable for the damages to the wine and is in a position to sue him according is further established by English case law. In Bayview Motors Ltd -v- Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Co., et al., [2002] the buyer contracted for a consignment of motor vehicles, whose specifications were clearly outlined in the contract. However, the goods he ultimately received were non-confirming consequent to the fact that they had been damaged during shipment. The seller successfully proved that the goods he had delivered to the carrier met the contractual requirements and therefore, established passage of risk. The buyer, thus, sued the carrier and the court found in favour of the claimant and held the carrier responsible for the damages.4 The aforementioned case is immediately relevant to the one at hand, insofar as it invaluably aids in the identification of the party responsible for the damaged consignment. Quite simply stated, passage of risk applied upon S's delivery of the goods to C in the required condition. The fact is that the goods were damaged during shipment and irrespective of whether C or his master of ship knew of the presence of the AFWA, the law is clear: C is responsible for the damages once he took possession of the goods at the quayside and, especially since S delivered them in the required condition. To this extent and given both the parameters of English law and CIF, B is entitled to sue C. (2) Even though, as previously stated, B is not responsible for t