支付案例分析

《支付案例分析》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《支付案例分析（7页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Disputes:1. A Chinese company exported food products to Rotterdam under L/C. The L/Cissued by the buyer stated that the exportershould provide SanitaryIn specti on Certificate in which the wordi ng the food free from ill nessand are up to standards for eating was required.After shipment, when theexp

2、orternegotiatedfor payment, the negotiatingbank found that thecertificate prese nted by the exporter did nt show the word ing the food products are free from ill ness required in the L/C. The n egotiat ing bank deemed it a discrepa ncy and asked the issu ing bank for opinions. However, the issu ing

3、bank did nt an swer. I n order to avid dish onor by the issu ing bank, the exporter had to asked the in specti on body to issue ano ther certificate that was in line with the requirement of the L/C. As a result, the exporter suffered losses resulted fromthe 20 days delay in thesettleme nt for payme

4、nt. What less on the exporter should lear n form the case?2. Compa ny A sig ned a con tract with a foreig n importer, export ingagricultural products.The date for sig nature was September 1 and the timefor shipme nt stipulatedin the con tract was October, Novembera nd December.However, after the mid

5、-September, the domestic price of the con tractedproduct was risingto a significantextent. CompanyA found it would suffergreat loss if it exported the goods accord ingto the con tract. Uponinvestigation,the reason for the rising of the price was the serious floodtook place in the producing area in m

6、id-July. Can CompanyA resort to force majeure clause for the avoida nee of its con tractual obligatio ns? Whatless ons can Compa ny A lear n from this case?3. On February 2nd, an exporter signed a CFRcontract with a Chinese importerwhich stipulated that L/C was the term for payment. The Chinese buye

7、r issued L/C and the seller fulfilledshipment and proposed a full set of documentsrequired. Later on, the seller issued a Letter of Indemni ty, ask ing theshipp ing compa ny to release the goods to a compa ny in Shan tou of China.On 24th of March, the Chin ese buyer obta ined the full set of docume

8、nt and went to the shipp ing compa ny to take delivery of the con tracted goods.However, he was told the goods had bee n take n by the compa ny in Shan touon 18th of the same mon th. On 9 th of June of the same year, the seller settled payme nt un der the con tract with the bank. After some efforts,

9、 the buyerwas still unable to get the contracted goods. As a result, on 14th of March of next year, the Chinese buyer asked for arbitration in China. What award could the arbitrati on possibly issue for this case?4. F, a state-ow ned en terprise, sig ned a con tract to import 1,000 M/T ofgalva ni ze

10、d steel sheets from a H.K. Compa ny. On March 1, a Shan ghai bank issued the L/C for USD200,000. On March 24, co ntai ner shipme nt was made.On March 25, the n egotiat ing bank in H.K. Negotiated the draft along withthe shipping documents. ONmarch 26, the opening bank received the “ clean B/L ” whil

11、e the sealed container arrived at Shanghai. On March 30, it was found that in side the container were rusted iron drums, rather tha n theordered steel sheets. The issuing bank was immediately notifiedof the fraud,but it could not refuse to take up the docume nts.On April 5 th, F co. Un covered that

12、the commodity specified on the B/L was50mm, inconsistentwith 50cm required by the L/C. On April 14, the issuingbank requested the HK bank to exercise the right of recourse.Would there be any problem with the recourse? What were the less ons?5. A Chinese bank issued standby L/Cs totaling millions of

13、U.S. Dollars,in favor of a U.S. Compa ny. These were irrevocable, tran sferable sta ndbyL/Cs valid for one year. Whe n questio ned by the supervis ing age ncy, thebank stated that these were merely evidenee of absorbed foreign investment,“It has no obligati on to repay prin cipal and in terest, and

14、bears noresponsibility, economic or legal, for the funds” . Ws there any risk forthe bank?6. 我某进出口公司收到国外信用证一份，规定：最后装船日2004年6月15日，信用证有效期2004年6月30日，交单期：提单日期后15天但必须在信用证的有 效期之内。后因为货源充足，该公司将货物提前出运， 幵船日期为2004年5月29 日。6月18日，该公司将准备好的全套单证送银行议付时，遭到银行的拒绝。请问（1）为什么银行会拒绝议付？ （2）该进出口公司将面临怎样风险？7. 我某外贸公司与澳大利亚某商达成一项皮手套

15、出口合同，价格条款为CIF悉尼，支付方式为不可撤销的即期信用证，投保中国保险条款一切险。生产厂家在生产的最后一道工序时，将低了湿度标准，使得产品的湿度增大，然后将产品装入集 装箱。货物到港后，检验结果表明，产品全部霉变，损失达八万美元。调查后发 现，该货物出口地不异常热，进口地不异常冷，运输途中无异常，属于正常运输。问（1），保险公司对该批货物是否负责赔偿？为什么？（2）进口商是否该支付货款？为什么？8. 某公司以CIF条件进口一批货物。货物自装运港，启航不久，载货船舶因遇风 暴而沉没。在这种情况下，卖方仍将包括保险单，提单，发票在内的全套单据寄 给买方，要求买方支付货款。问进口方是否有义务付

16、款？为什么？9. 我某进出口公司出口一批轻纺织品，合同规定以不可撤销的即期信用证为付款 方式。买方在合同规定的幵证时间内将信用证幵抵通知银行，并立即转交给了我 进出口公司。我进出口公司审核后发现，有关条款与合同不一致。为争取时间， 尽快将信用证修改完毕，以便办理货物的装运，我方立即电告幵证银行修改信用证，并要求将信用证修改书直接寄交我公司。问：（1）我方的做法可能会产生什么后果？（ 2）正确的信用证修改渠道是怎样的？10. 1990年8月5日,中国某进出口公司（买卖以电传方式达成协议，根据协议，卖方发出了已经签署的“售货确认书 ,其主要内容为:数量3万套,单价30美元，总 价90万美元，价格条

17、件是CIF（成本加保险费加运费）某港交货，并明确要求买方在 同年9月5日以前，向卖方幵出百分之百的、保兑的、不可撤销的、可分割的即期 付款信用证。8月20日,卖方收到了经过买方签字的确认书，但买方将确认书中的 CIF条件改为托盘运输条款。9月2日,卖方收到了经过买方幵出的信用证，金额与 确认书相符，但信用证种类与价格条款等却与确认书原有规定存重大差异。其一，信用证并非保兑:其二,确认书原定的CIF价格条件变成了托盘运输条款。据此,卖方于9月下旬电告买方拒收上述信用证，并将信用证退给了幵证银行。此后，双方未能就确认书条款与信用证条款的差异达成一致，导致此合同不能履行，双方因此立？ （2）本案中信

18、用证是否有效？11. 1992年10月，法国某公司（卖方）与中国某公司（买方）在上海订立了买卖 200 台电子计算机的合同，每台 CIF上海1000美元，以不可撤销的信用证支付，1992 年12月马赛港交货。1992年11月15日，中国银行上海分行（幵证行）根据买方指 示向卖方幵出了金额为 20万美元的不可撤销的信用证，委托马赛的一家法国银行 通知并议付此信用证。1992年12月20日，卖方将200台计算机装船并获得信用 证要求的提单、保险单、发票等单证后 ，即到该法国议付行议付。经审查，单证相 符,银行即将20万美元支付给卖方。与此同时，载货船离幵马赛港10天后,由于在 航行途中遇上特大暴雨和暗礁，货物与货船全部沉入大海。此时幵证行已收到了议付行寄来的全套单据，买方也已知所购货物全部损失的消息。中国银行上海分行拟 偿付议付行支付的20万美元的货款，理由是其客户不能得到所期待的货物。根据 国际贸易惯例，现问:?1.这批货物的风险自何时起由卖方转移给买方? 2.幵证行能否由于这批货物全部灭失而免除其所承担的付款义务？依据是什么？ 3.买方的损失如何得到补偿？