商務(wù)英語case-study及商務(wù)英語電話對(duì)話business english for phone call

casestudy【Case1】CIForNot?AnimportandexportcompanyHinChinasignedwithaBritishcompanyDacontractonCIFbasis,wherebycompanyHexportedsomelightindustrialproductstocompanyD.Thereweretwospecialclausesinthecontract:(1).“ThegoodsmustbeshippedtoaportinBritainfromShanghaiinOctober1996;therelevantL/CopenedbycompanyDshouldreachcompanyHbytheendofAugust;companyHmustguaranteethattheloadedvesselarriveatthedestinationnotlaterthanDecember1.(2)shouldtheloadedvesselarriveattheportofdestinationlaterthanDecember1,companyDisentitledtocancelthecontract.Ifthepaymenthasbeenmadeatthetime,itmustbereturnedtocompanyDexactlytheamount.”Afterthat,inthecourseofclearingupcontractfiles,acontroversyaroseincompanyHaboutthenatureofthisCIFcontract.SomepeopleheldtheopinionthatthecontractwasonCIFbasisinspiteofthetwoparticularterms,givingfollowingreasons:firstly,thecontractwassignedunderthetradetermofCIF,whichindicatedthenatureofthecontract;secondly,companyDmadesuchspecialrequirementsonlytoprotecttheirbenefits;thirdly,thecontractprovidedpaymentbyL/C,whichwasinaccordancewithCIFterm’scharacteristicofpaymentagainstdocuments.OthersbelievedthataccordingtoINCOTERMS2000,theseller’sdeliveryobligationsarefulfilledaslongasthesellerhascompletedshipmentofgoodsattheappointedpointandhandedovertothebuyerdocumentsstipulatedinthecontractandsothesellerisnotrequiredtoguaranteethearrivalofgoodsatthedestination.Therefore,thiscontractwasafalseCIFcontract,asitchangedthenatureofCIFtermbytakingphysicaldeliveryasaconditionoffulfillment.Thecontractmustberenegotiated.Finally,companyHreachedacommonperceptionandgotthetwospecialclausesamendedthroughnegotiationwithcompanyD.Thecontractwascarriedoutsmoothly.Analysis:AlthoughthecontractwasconcludedonCIFbasis,itwasnotagenuineCIFcontract.ThiscaseindicatesthesignificanceofCIFterm’ssphereofapplication.ThetwospecialclausesintheoriginalcontractnotonlycontradictedwiththenatureofCIFterm,butalsodisagreedwiththepracticesofinternationaljusticeandarbitration.First,theoriginalcontractnotonlysetalimittothedateofarrival,butalsostipulatedthatthebuyerwasentitledtocancelthecontractordemandbackthepaymentthathadalreadybeenmade.Evidently,therestrictivedateofarrivalservednotasthedateofpayment,butasaconditionofpayment.Therefore,legallythecontractwasnotagenuineCIFcontractasitmadephysicaldeliveryaconditionofpayment.Second,underCIFterms,theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspassesfromthesellertothebuyerwhenthegoodshavepassedtheship’srailattheportofshipment.Acontractthatexpandsthebuyer’sriskfromtheportofshipmenttotheportofdestinationisnotaCIFcontract.Accordingtotheprovisionintheoriginalcontract,companyHwasobligatedtorefundthepaymentincaseofnaturalcalamitiesoraccidentsduringthecourseofdeliveringthegoods,whichevidencedthatthesellerassumedalltherisksduringthetransport.Third,underCIFterms,thebuyermustmakepaymentagainstdocumentsratherthanagainstthearrivalofthegoodsattheportofdestination,providedthatthesellerhasfulfilledhisdeliveryobligationsandpresentedtherequireddocuments.Aspertheoriginalcontract,whethercompanyHcouldreceivethepaymentforgoodsornotdependedonbuyer’sreceivingonschedule.AlthoughthesellermightreceivethepaymentbymeansofL/C,thepaymentwouldbetakenbackbythebuyerifthegoodscouldnotdulyarriveattheportofdestination.Besides,companyDcouldtakeadvantageofrelevantL/Cclausesthatareinaccordancewiththoseinthecontracttodenythesellerthepaymentforgoods.CompanyHcouldhardlymakeaclaimforhisrightsunderanormalCIFcontractsincethiscontractwastheone“innamebutnotinreality”.【Case2】CFR&ShippingNoticeAnimportandexportcompanyinChinasignedanexportcontractwithanimporterinMarseilles,FranceondrawnworktableclothwithanamountofUSD80,000,paymentbyD/Patsight.OnthemorningofJanuary8,1997,thegoodswereallloadedontothenamedvessel.Theexportsalespersoninchargeofthiscontractgotsobusythathedidnotremembertosendthebuyertheshippingadviceuntilthenextmorning.Unexpectedly,whentheFrenchimporterwenttothelocalinsurancecompanytoinsurethegoods,thelatterhadalreadylearnedthattheshipsufferedawreckonJanuary9andrefusedtounderwritethegoods.TheFrenchimporterimmediatelysentatelexsaying,“owingtoyourdelayedshippingadvice,weareunabletoinsurethegoodsbecausethevesselhasbeendestroyedinawreck.Thelossofgoodsshouldbeforyouraccount.Atthesametime,youshouldcompensateourprofitandexpenselosseswhichamounttoUSD8,000.”Soonalltheshippingdocumentssentthroughthecollectingbankwerereturnedtotheexportcompany,forthereasonthattheimporterrefusedtotakeupthedocuments.Beingaregularclientoftheexporter’s,theFrenchimporterdidnotinsistonclaimingforcompensationaftertheexporterexplainedhisdifficultsituationandapologizedforthewholething.However,theexportershouldlearnhislessonfromthisexperience.Analysis:1.UnderCFRterms,alltherisks,dutiesandexpensesaftergoods’passingship’srailarenormallybornebythebuyer.However,Incoterms2000providesthat“thesellermustgivethebuyersufficientnotice……”.Heretheword“sufficient”referstoboth“sufficient”contentand“sufficient”time.Thelattermeansthesellermustgivetheshippingnoticeinatimelymannertoallowsufficienttimeforthebuyertoeffectinsuranceofthegoods.Thelaterthesellersendstheshippingnotice,thelesstimethebuyerhastoinsurethegoods.Inthiscase,thebuyer’sfailuretosendthe“sufficientnotice”ledtohislossofbothgoodsandmoney.Ontheotherhand,ifthesellerhadinformedthebuyerimmediatelyaftershippingthegoods,thebuyerwouldhaveinsuredthegoodsintimeatthelocalinsurancecompany.Inthatcase,theinsurancecompanywouldhaveassumeditsliabilityforcompensationeveniftheaccidenthadhappenedpriortothebuyer’seffectinginsuranceasboththebuyerandtheinsurancecompanywereignorantoftheaccident.Thus,itcanbeseenhowimportantitistosendtheshippingadvicetothebuyerintimeunderCFRterms.Thatiswhyshippingadviceisoftenreferredtoas“insurancenotice”intradepractices.2.WhenCFRtermsorFOBtermsareusedincombinationwithpaymentbycollection,thebuyermaycoverthegoodsagainst“seller’sinterestrisk”beforeexportingthegoodstocounteractthebuyer’sfailuretoeffectinsuranceorthebuyer’srefusaltoretirethedocuments.Hadthesellerinthiscasecoveredtheshipmentagainstthesaidrisk,thelosswouldhavebeensomewhatmitigated.【Case3】CFR&GoodsQualityAFrenchcompanyimportedabatchofwheatonCFRbasis.Thecontractprovidedthatthelandingqualityofthegoodsshouldbetakenasfinal.However,whenthegoodsarrivedatthedestination,theimportquarantinebureaudetainedthegoodsastheyhadfoundthatthegoodscontainedagreatdealofbacteriumforbiddentoenterthecountry.Unfortunately,thegoodswereconsumedbyafirewhileindetainment.Adisputebrokeoutbetweenthebuyerandtheseller.AnalysisUnderCFRterms,thebuyershouldbearalltherisksafterthegoodshavepassedtheship’srailandbeenloadedonboard.However,shouldthesellerbeheldresponsibleforanydefaultbeforethatpoint?Inthiscase,itwasthesellerwhoshouldassumetherisks.ThereasonisthatalthoughthiswasaCFRcontract,thesellerbreacheditbydeliveringthegoodswhichfailedtomeetthequalitystandardprovidedinthecontract.Thisfundamentaldefaulthascausedthedetainmentandthenthelossofthegoods.Therefore,whiletheriskshadbeentransferredtothebuyer,theseller’sdefaultreturnedtheriskstotheseller.Ofcourse,underCFRcontract,whentheseller’sdefaultisnotfundamental,thebuyershouldbearalltherisksforanylossofthegoodsattheportofdestination.Meanwhile,thesellershouldmakeduecompensationtothebuyerasperthecontractandrelevantlaws.【Case4】ThebuyerdelaysthesendingofthevesselunderFOB.CompanyAinChinasignedacontractonFOBbasistoexportwheattoCompanyBinAfrica.Itwascontractedthatshipmentshouldbemadeinfourlots.Theshippingclauseranasfollows:“thevesselnominatedbythebuyershouldreachtheportofshipmentwithineightdaysbeforethedateofshipment.Otherwise,anyoftheseller’slossordamagethusincurredshallbebornebythebuyer.”Thecontractalsospecified,“Thebuyermustgivetheselleranoticeofvesselnameandtheestimateddateofarrivalbytelecommunicationfivedaysbeforethevesselarrivesattheportofshipment.”Duringthecourseoffulfillment,thefirstthreelotswereshippedsmoothlyaccordingtothecontract.However,thebuyerwasslowtosendthevesselforthelastshipment.InreplytoCompanyA’srepeatedurges,companyBsaidthattheywereunabletobookshippingspacebecauseofshippingcompany’sbusyscheduleandaskedforpostponingdeliveryfortwomonths.CompanyArepliedasfollows:“accordingtothecontract,youareboundtosendthevesseltopickupthegoods.Incaseofanydifficultiesinthisaspect,wemayallowyoutodelaytheshipmentonconditionthatyoumakeacompensationwhichamountstoUSD200,000.”Finally,thebargainofcompensationwassettledatUSD150,000andcompanyBwasallowedtodelayvesselsendingfortwomonths.Analysis:UnderFOBterms,itisthebuyer’sobligationtoarrangefordeliveringthegoods.WithreferencetoINCOTERMS2000,“thebuyermustcontractathisownexpenseforthecarriageofthegoodsfromthenamedportofshipment.”Italsoprovidesthat“thebuyermustgivethesellersufficientnoticeofthevesselname,loadingpointandrequireddeliverytime”.Ifthebuyer’svesselfailstoarriveattheportofshipmentduly,orfailstoacceptthegoods,orstopsloadingaheadoftheschedulespecifiedinthecontract,alltherisksandlossofanddamagetothegoodsaretobebornebythebuyerasoftheappointeddatefordeliveringthegoodsortheexpirydateofthetimelimit.Itwaslearnedlaterthatduringtheimplementationofthelastshipment,theinternationalmarketpriceofwheatdroppeddrastically,whichgreatlyinfluencedthesalesofcompanyBwhothenattemptedtocancelthedeliveryofthelastshipmentbyhangingitup.However,companyAmadegooduseofINCOTERMSexplanationforFOBtermsandprotecteditsownintereststhroughpropermeans.【Case5】AChineseinternationaltradecompanyexportedabatchofwalnuttoEnglandonthebasisofCIFLondon.Asitwasaseasonalcommodity,itwasstipulatedinthecontractthatthecoveringL/CshouldreachthesellerbeforetheendofSeptember.ThesellerguaranteedthatthevesselwouldreachtheportofdestinationnotlatterthanDecember2.Ifthevesselreachedtheportofdestinationlaterthanthatday,thebuyerwasentitledtocancelthecontract.Incasethepaymenthadbeenmade,thesellershouldreturnthepaymenttothebuyer.Then,wheredoyouthinkthecruxliesinthiscase?Analysis:TheChineseshouldberesponsiblefortheloss.AspertheclauseofCFRterm,theexporterisresponsiblefornotifyingtheshippingdetailsASAPandtheimportercanarrangetheinsuranceintime.Ifthenotifydelayedandcausethelosswithoutinsurancecovering,theexpoetermustbeartheloss.Inthiscase,thecruxliesisthedateofreachingthedestination.Becauseitisnormalforvesseldelayonseashipment.Thesellercannotcontroltheshippingtimesonthesea.SotheL/Cshouldamendforthereachtime,insteadofthedeparturetime.【Case6】AChineseexportcompanyhascarriedonbusinessrelationsinprintedcottonpiecegoodswithaWestAfricanclientformanyyears.Inthecourseoftransactions,theclientoftensuppliessamplesofdesignsandassortments,inaccordancewithwhichtheexportcompanyproducestheprintedcottonpiecegoods.Inearly1991,theexportcompanyunexpectedlyreceivedaletterfromaFrenchfirm,whichthoughtcertaindesignsoftheexportprintedcottonpiecegoodsfellunderhispatent,andthusthecompanyhadinfringedupontheFrenchfirm’srightofpatent.TheFrenchfirmaskedthecompanyinquestionfordamages.DoyouthinkthedemandoftheFrenchfirmwasreasonable?Why?AnalysisItem1ofArticle42oftheCISGstatethat“thesellermustdelivergoodswhicharefreefromanyrightorclaimofathirdpartybasedonindustrialpropertyorotherintellectualproperty,ofwhichatthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontractthesellerkneworcouldnothavebeenunaware,…”andItem2ofthesameArticlecontinuesthat“Theobligationofthesellerundertheprecedingparagraphdoesnotextendtocaseswhere:①atthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontractthebuyerkneworcouldnothavebeenunawareoftherightorclaim;or②therightorclaimresultsfromtheseller’scompliancewiththetechnicaldrawings,designs,formulaeorothersuchspecificationsfurnishedbythebuyer.”InthiscasetheChinesecompanyhadnotknownanythingaboutthepatentattheconclusionofthecontract;thereforeitisnotresponsibleforanyclaimsforinfringementoftheintellectualrights.【Case7】CompanyWreceivesanirrevocablesightL/Cfromabroad.Whenpreparingtoshipthegoodsaccordingtothestipulationsoftheletterofcredit,CompanyWsuddenlygetsanoticefromtheOpeningBanksayingthattheApplicanthasbecomebankrupt.ThenhowwillCompanyWdealwiththiscase?Why?AnalysisCompanyWcaninsistontheIssuingBank’seffectingpaymentincorrespondencewiththerelevantinternationalbusinesscustomsandpractice.Article9ofthe《UCP600》says,“AnirrevocableCreditconstitutesundertakingoftheIssuingBank,providedthatthestipulateddocumentsarepresentedtotheNominatedBankortotheIssuingBankandconditionsoftheCreditarecompliedwith…”ThisArticleclearlyindicatesthattheIssuingBankbearsthefirstresponsibilityforpaymentifthedocumentspresentedareincompliancewithL/Cstipulations.InthiscasetheIssuingBankcannotescapeitsliabilityforpaymentonexcuseoftheBuyer’sbankruptcy.【Case8】Ashipstartedonitsvoyageafterloading,butinthecourseofthejourneyafirebrokeoutduringtransitinHoldA,whichhadbeenloadedwithstationaryandtea.Thecaptionorderedhiscrewtopourwateronthefire.Itwasfoundout,afterthefirewasextinguished,thatpartofthestationeryhadbeenburned,theremainderandalltheteahadbeensoakedthrough.Then,whatwerethenaturesoftherespectivelosses?Whatriskwouldyouhavecoveredifyouhadwantedtobecompensatedforthelosses?AnalysisThelosstothestationarypertainedtoparticularaverage,whilethelosstotheteawasapartialone…TheinsurancecompanywillhavecompensatedforthelossesifthegoodshadbeeninsuredagainstFPA【Case9】TheABCCompanyexportedaconsignmentofsilk.AstheshippingmarksintherelevantL/Cwerenotclear,thepersoninchargethoughtthattheL/CdidnotstipulatetheshippingmarksandthosestatedintheL/C.Thebuyerstherefore,refusedtopayforthedocuments.However,afternegotiation,thebuyersagreedtopayonlywhentheABCCompanyhadreducedtheoriginalpricesby10percent.Whatlessoncanwelearnfromthiscase?AnalysisThemostimportantlessonwecanlearnisthat,itisessentialfortheexportertopresentdocumentinaccordancewiththestipulationsoftherevelantL/C.Inthiscase,findingtheshippingmarksillegibleontheL/C,theexportsalesmanintheABCCompany,insteadofaskingthebuyerforclarification,decidedtheshippingmarkshimself.ThisconstituteddiscrepancybetweenthedocumentsandtheL/C.Article14ofthe《UCP500》clearlyindicates,“WhentheIssuingBankauthorizesanotherbanktopay,incuradeferredpaymentundertaking,acceptdraft(s),ornegotiateagainstdocumentswhichappearontheirfacetobeincompliancewiththetermsandconditionsoftheCredit…”ItisclearthatthedocumentspresentedmustbeinconformitywiththestipulationsintheL/C.【Case10】AcertainShanghaiexportcompanyofferedtosellcertaincommoditiestoanAmericancompanyonAugust10.ThebuyerrepliedonAugust6thathehadacceptedtheoffer,butaskedtheShanghaiCompanytotake2%offeachofthepricesoftheoffer.OnAugust7,theShanghaiCompanycablednoreduction.OnAugust8,theAmericanCompanysentbackacableincludingcompleteacceptanceoftheofferofAugust1.Becausethepricesofcommoditiesinquestionwererisingontheinternationalmarket,theShanghaiCompanydidnotcableanyreply.Thenwasthereanycontractmadebetweenthesellersandbuyers?Why?AnalysisNo,nocontractisconcludedbecauseanofferbecomesnullandvoidafteritsbeingcounter-offered.【Case11】In1990,acertainexportcompanyofChinasentagroupofbusinessmentotheUnitedStatesforpurchaseofequipment.InNewYorkbothpartiesreachedanoralagreementonsuchitemsasspecifications,unitprice,andquantity.Uponleaving,thegroupindicatedtotheotherpartythat,whentheygotbacktoBeijing,theywoulddrawacontract,whichwouldbecomeeffectiveafterbeingsignedbybothparties.AftergoingbacktoBeijing,thegroupfoundthattheclientswithdrawtheirimportoftheequipment,andthusthecontractwasnotsignedandtheL/Cwasnotopened,either.TheUSsideurgedtheChinesesidetoperformthecontract;otherwisetheywouldlodgeaclaimwiththeChinesesideintheUS.PleaseanalyzethecaseandgiveanopiniononhowtheChineseexportcompanywastodealwiththiscaseandwhy?AnalysisAccordingtoArticle11ofCISG:“Acontractofsaleneednotbeconcludedin,orevidencedby,writingandisnotsubjecttoanyotherrequirementastoform.Itmaybeprovedbyanymeans,includingwitnesses.”ThoughChinaandtheUSarebothmembercountriesoftheCISG,ChinadeclaredthatitwouldnotbeboundbyArticleanditsrelatedarticles.Thatistosay,anykindofcontractsinChinamustbeevidencingbywriting.Inthiscase,thoughbothcompaniesagreedorallyastothemaintermsofthesalescontract,accordingtoChineselaw,isnoteffective.【Case12】AChineseexportcompanysentonJune1anoffertoabusinessmanlivinginItaly,stipulatingforthereplytoreachthembeforeJune10.TheItalianbusinessmancabledhisacceptanceoftheofferonJune8.Becauseofthedelaybythepostoffice,theacceptancedidnotreachtheChinesecompanywasinformedthatthepriceofthesaidproductswererisingrapidly.WhatdoyouthinkisthebestwayfortheChinesecompanytodealwiththiscase?Why?AnalysisAccordingtoItem2ofArticle21ofCISG;“Ifaletterorotherwritingcontainingalateacceptanceshowsthatithasbeensentinsuchcircumstancesthatifitstransmissionhadbeennormalitwouldhavereachedtheofferorinduetime,thelateacceptanceiseffectiveasanacceptanceunless,withoutdelay,theofferororallyinformstheoffereethatheconsidershisofferashavinglapsedordispatchesanoticetothateffect.Inthiscase,inordertoavoidunnecessaryloss,theChinesecompanyshouldtelephoneordispatchimmediatelyanoticethatacceptanceisineffectiveasitislate.”【Case13】Mr.Smith,anAmericanbusinessman,soldabatchofIBMcomputerstoaHongKongimporter,Mr.Chen.ThesalescontractwasconcludedintheUnitedStatesofAmericanonthetermsofCIFHongKong.Duringexecutionofthiscontract,disputesarosebetweenthesellerandthebuyerontheformandinterpretationofthecontract.Insuchacase,didthelawoftheUSAorthelawofHongKongapplytothedisputes?Why?AnalysisThelawoftheUSAappliestothiscontractbecause①thiswasaCIFcontract;②theplaceofconclusionofthecontractwasintheUSA;③theplaceoftheexecutionofthecontractwasalsointheUSA.ThesellercompletedhisresponsibilitiesafterhedeliveredthegoodsattheportoftheUSA.【Case14】AChineseexportcompanysold25metrictonsofDonkeyMeattoaJapaneseclient.Asstipulatedinthecontract,thegoodsweretobepackedin1500boxeswithanetweightof16.6kilosperbox.Ifthegoodswerepackedaccordingtostipulations,thetotalweightwas24.9metrictons,theremaining100kilosmightnotbedelivered.WhenthegoodsarrivedatJapaneseport,theJapaneseCustomsOfficerscheckedthemandfoundthateachboxcontainedto20kilos,not16.6kilos,.Therefore,thisshipmentamountedto30metrictons.However,thegoodstotaled24.9M/Tinweightonallthedocumentsandthepaymentwasalsoeffectedagainst24.9M/T.Thus5100kilosofDonkeyMeatwerefreeofcharge.Worstofall,becauseofthediscrepancybetweenthenetweightonthedocumentsandtheactualweight,JapaneseCustomsthoughttheexportcompanyhelpeditsclienttoevadeduties.Thenhowcanwedealwiththisissue?Whatlessonscanwedrawfromthiscase?AnalysisItseemsthatthesellerdeliveredthegoodsmorethanwhatwasstipulatedinthecontract;therefore,accordingtoArticle52oftheCISG,thebuyermayrefusetotakedeliveryoftheexcessquantitydelivered.However,inthiscasebecauseoftheignoranceoftheconcerned,differenceoccurredbetweentheactualgoodsdeliveredandthequantityspecifiedindocuments.What’ssunnyisthattheweightindicatedonthedocumentswasthesameasthatstatedinthecontract.Asaresult,thebuyermightobtainmorewithoutpayinganything.However,theJapaneseCustomsHousedeliveredthedifferencebetweenthedocumentsandtheactualgoodsdelivered,whichcauseembarrassmenttotheChinesecompany.Theonlywayofsolvingtheproblem,perhaps,wastoexplainwhathappenedinthefactorytotheJapaneseCustomsHouse.Althoughtheproblemmighthavebeensolved,westillhavealottolearnfromthiscase:①Strengthentheconnectionbetweenthealespeopleandthefactory;②theexportsalesmanshouldmakethemodeofpackingcleartotheprocessingfactory;③theChineseCustomsHousemustalsochecktheweightofgoodsagainstthedocument;and④weshouldseethatthereisagreementnotonlybetweenthedocumentspresented,butalsobetweenthedocumentsandthegoods.【Case15】AChinesetradingcompanyEconcludedatransactioninsteelwithaHongKongcompanyWonthebasisofFOBChinaPort.CompanyWimmediatelyresoldthesteeltoCompanyHintheLibyaonthetermsofCFRLiberia.TheL/CfromWrequiredthepricetermstobeFOBChinaPortandthegoodstobedirectlydeliveredtoLiberia.TheL/Calsorequired“FreightPrepaid”tobeindicatedontheB/L.WhydidCompanyWperformso?Whatshouldwedoaboutit?AnalysisInthiscasethecontractwasconcludedbetweenCompanyEandCompanyWonFOBterms,accordingtowhichthesellerendedhisresponsibilitieswhenhedeliveredthegoodsonboardtheshipattheportofshipment.Hedidnotneedtopayfortransportationofthegoodsortheinsurancepremium.Therefore,itwasnotrightforWtoaskEtopaythefreightandindicate“FreightPrepaid”ontheB/L.ThereasonwhyWaskedEtodothatmightbethathewantedtotransferthefreightchargestoE.However,inpracticaldealings,foreigntradecompaniesoftencomeacrosssuchsituations,especiallywhenacontractisconcludedwithanagent,whowantstoresellsthegoods.Inthiscase,EmightcomplywithW’Srequests,buthehadtoindicatethatthefreightshouldbebornebyW.【Case16】AmerchantinSouthAmericaplacedanorderwithaChineseexportcompanyforacertaincommodityonCFRAsuncionterms.Withaviewtodevelopingnewmarkets,theexportcompanyimmediatelymadeanofferabroadonthebasisofCFRAsuncion,andthetransactionwassoonconcluded.Whenshippingthegoods,however,thiscompanycametorealizethatAsuncionisaninlandcity.Aswasthecase,ifthecompanyhadthegoodstransportedtoAsuncion,ithadto,firstofall,havethegoodstransportedbyseatoaseaportinArgentinaorsomeotherSouthAmericanneighboringcountry.Afterthat,thegoodsmightbetransporttoAsuncionthroughrivertransportationorinlandtransportation.Asaresult,thiscompanyhadtopayaconsiderablesumoffreightcharges.Whatcanwelearnfromthiscase?AnalysisInthiscasethelosswascausedsimplybecauseoftheignoranceonthepartoftheexportbusinessman.Whatwecanlearnfromthiscaseisthat,whenofferingabroad,wemustmakeexactcalculationsofthetotalfreightandotherrelevantcharges.Mostimportantly,itisverybeneficialforeverybusinessmantolearngeography.【Case17】MissingaddressindocumentarycollectionAnagriculturalproductsimportandexportcompany(companyA)inChinasoldabatchofHempseedsworthUSD985,000.Itwaswritteninthecontractthat“paymentbytheseller’sdraft20daysaftersighttobeacceptedbythebuyeruponpresentation.Documentsaretobedeliveredtothebuyeragainstacceptance.Paymentistobemadeonthedateofmaturity.”CompanyAshippedthegoodsaccordingtothecontractontimeandpresentedthedocumentsonMarch15toitsremittingbankforcollection.TheremittingbankappointedBankD.K.asthecollectingbankandmailedthedocumentstoit.OnApril25,amessagewasreceivedfromcompanyB,thebuyer:“RexxxxxtonsofHempseedsunderContractNo.xxxxx,asperyourshippingnoticeonMarch14,wehavecontactedtheshippingagency.Thegoodshavearrivedforalongtime,butpresentlywestillhavenotreceivedthedocumentscoveringthegoods.Pleasecheckwithyourbankaboutit.”CompanyArepliedonApril28:“ThankyouforyourfaxofApril25.RexxxxxtonsofHempseedsunderContractNo.xxxxx,wehavecheckedandherebyconfirmthatweentrustedthehandlingofD/A20daystoBankConMarch15.BankCsentthedocumentstoyouonMarch16.Pleasecheck.”O(jiān)nApril30,companyBsentanothermessage:“ThankyouforyourfaxofApril28.WehaveinquiredourcorrespondentbankWrepeatedlybutfoundnothingrelatedtothiscollection.PleasefinditoutwiththecollectingbankD.K.throughyourremittingbank.Lookf