国际贸易实务课后答案

Chapter 1 Introduction to International Trade 1.10.2 1)-c. Tariff (关税) 2)-b. Mercantilism (重商主义) 3)-a. Comparative advantage (比较优势) 4)-e. Quota (配额) 5)-g. Incoterms (国际贸易术语解释通则) 6)-d. UCP600(《跟单信用证统一惯例》国际商会第600号出版物) 7)-f. Invisible trade (无形贸易) 8)-i. Dumping (倾销) 9)-h. Opportunity cost (机会成本) 10)-j. CISG(联合国国际货物销售 合同 劳动合同范本免费下载装修合同范本免费下载租赁合同免费下载房屋买卖合同下载劳务合同范本下载 公约) 1.10.3 1) B 2) C 3) C 4) B 5) A 6) A 7) B 8) D 9) D 10) D 1.10.4 1) F 2) T 3) T 4) F 5) T 6) F 7) T 8) F 9) T 10) F 1.10.5 Analysis on Case 1: The US specializes in wheat production while the UK specializes in cloth production. If the US exchanges 6W for 6C, per each hour she gains 2C more than she would have produced internally. 6W, which is equivalent to six man-hours in the UK to produce 12C (6 hours X 2 y/m-h = 12C). By exchanging 6C for 6W from the US, the UK gains 6C (12 – 6). The US will accept more than 4C per man-hour and the UK will be willing to give less than 12C for 6W. This is based on their internal conditions before trade. 4C < 6W < 12C The US will gain 2C in exchange for 6W. The UK will gain 6C as the result of exchanging 6C for 6W. Analysis on Case 2: Car industries are mature industries that faced sharp declines in employment in the industrial countries during the past three decades like United States. Sometimes called “orderly marketing arrangements,” these voluntary export restraints have allowed the United States to make use of them to save at least the appearance of continued support for the principle of free trade. Also it can save about 20,000 jobs but raised the price of steel in the United States by 20 to 30 percent. Therefore, it may result in bitter deputes between the United States, Japan, the European Union, and other nations. Chapter 2 Business Negotiation and Conclusion of the Contract 2.7.2 1) Business negotiation, the trade terms 2) enquiry, offer, counter-offer, acceptance and conclusion of a sales contract 3) An offer, offeror, offeree 4) a seller, a buyer, selling offer 5) non-firm offers/offers without engagement 6) clear, complete, final 7) rejection, counter-offer 8) an acceptance, the offeror 9) the sales contract, the sales confirmation, The former/ The sales contract 10) an offer, an acceptance, a required condition 2.7.3 1) F 2) F 3) F 4) T 5 ) F 6) T 7) F 8) T 9) F 10) T 2.7.4 Analysis on Case 1: Both China and the United States are treaty powers of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). In this case, both parties did not exclude the application of CISG and were consequently bound by the relevant clauses of CISG. According to CISG Article 19.2, “A reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additional or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance, unless the offeror, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. If he does not so object, the terms of the contract are the terms of the offer with the modifications contained in the acceptance.” So, a reply to an offer which purports to be an acceptance but contains additional or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance, unless the offeror, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. Also, CISG Article 19.3 has the following provision: “Additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party’s liability to the other or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially.” So, additional terms relating to package are not considered to alter the terms of the offer materially. Therefore, the reply of the American company had constituted an acceptance and the contract was valid. Should the American company refused to fulfill the contract, the export company could lodge a claim in the light of CISG. Analysis on Case 2: In this case the contract between the two parties is not formed because the reply of Company A on July 17 constituted a counter-offer which made the offer on July 16 invalid. Company A should not accept the offer July 16. Instead the company should accept the counter-offer July 17. In addition, when Company A made an acceptance, such words as “confirmation” should not be used. Chapter 3 Quality and Quantity of Goods 3.8.2 a. Sale by actual quality 凭实物买卖—4) b. counter sample对等样品—5) c. sale by description凭文字说明买卖—7) d. More or less clause溢短装条款—6) e. F.A.Q.良好平均品质—3) f. SI国际单位制(International System of Units)—2) g. Quality tolerance品质机动幅度—10) h. Conditioned weight 公量—8) i. Computed tare 约定皮重—1) j. The Metric System 公制—9) 3.8.3 1) C 2) A 3) C 4) A 5) D 6) C 7) A 8) D 9) B 10) A 11) C 12) A 13) D 14) C 15) B 3.8.4 1) F 2) T 3) T 4) T 5) F 6) F 7) T 8) T 9) F 10) F 11) F 12) F 13) T 14) F 15) F 3.8.5 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. Analysis on Case 2: 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. Chapter 4 Packing and Marking 4.9.2 1) B 2) D 3) C 4) D 5) A 6) B 7) C 8) D 9) B 10) C 4.9.3 1) T 2) F 3) T 4) F 5) T 6) T 7) F 8) F 9) T 10) F 4.9.4 1重心点 - 1 / 2禁用叉车 – 9 / 3由此吊起 -3 / 4温度极限 – 2 / 5由此夹起 – 8 / 6此面禁用手推车 – 6 / 7禁用手钩 – 4 / 8怕热 – 10 9堆码重量极限 – 7 / 10禁止滚翻 – 5 / 11易燃气体 – 14 / 12 有机过氧化物 – 18/ 13氧化剂 – 13 / 14遇湿易燃物品 – 16 / 15感染性物品 – 17 / 16爆炸品 – 19 / 17腐蚀品 – 11 / 18不燃气体 – 20 / 19有毒气体 – 12 / 20二级放射性物品 - 15 4.9.5 Analysis on Case 1: 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 expenses 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. Analysis on Case 2: According to CISG Article 35. (1), “The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract.” In this case, the seller did not follow the packing clause stipulated in the contract, thus breaking the contract. The seller should tender to the buyer his apologies for this discrepant packing on his own initiative so as to gain the buyer’s forgiveness. Chapter 5 International Trade Terms 5.10.2 a. 5 / b. 1/ c. 6 / d. 8 / e. 9 / f. 13 / g. 2/ h. 7 / i. 12 / j. 3 / k. 10 / l. 4 / m. 11 5.10.3 Trade terms Risks Obligations Costs Who is responsible for all risks after the goods pass the ship’s rail at the loading port? Who charters the ship and books shipping space? Who arranges marine insurance? Who pays all costs and freight to the port of destination? Who pays the insurance premium? FOB Buyer Buyer Buyer Buyer Buyer CFR Buyer Seller Buyer Seller Buyer CIF Buyer Seller Seller Seller Seller 5.10.4 1) B 2) D 3) C 4) B 5) D 6) C 7) C 8) A 9) C 10) C 11) D 12) C 13 B 14) D 15) D 5.10.5 1) F 2) T 3) T 4) F 5) F 6) T 7) F 8) T 9) T 10 ) T 5.10.6 Analysis on Case 1: Under CFR term, all the risks duties and expenses after goods’ passing ship’s rail are normally borne by the buyer. It is provided that the seller must also give the buyer sufficient notice that the goods have been delivered in order to allow the buyer to take measures which are normally necessary to enable him to take the goods. Under this term, the seller must give the shipping notice in a timely manner so as to allow sufficient time for the buyer to effect insurance of the goods. In this case, it was the seller’s failure to send the “sufficient notice” that led to his loss of both goods and money. On the other hand, if the seller had informed the buyer immediately after shipping the goods, the buyer would have insured the goods in time at the local insurance company. In that case, the insurance company would have assumed its liability for compensation even if the accident had happened prior to the buyer’s effecting insurance while both the buyer and the insurance company were ignorant of the accident. Thus it can be seen how important it is to send the shipping advice to the buyer in time under CFR terms. That is why shipping advice is often referred to as “insurance notice” in trade practices. When CFR terms or FOB terms are used in combination with payment by collection, the seller may cover the goods against “seller’s interest risk” before exporting the goods to counteract the buyer’s failure to effect insurance or the buyer’s refusal to retire the documents. Had the seller in this case covered the shipment against the said risk, the loss would have been somewhat mitigated. Analysis on Case 2: In international trade, it is of great importance to determine the nature of the contract. Generally speaking, the trade terms you use determine the nature of the contract, as trade terms themselves stipulate the risks, liabilities and costs of the buyer and seller. Although the contract of this case was concluded on CIF basis, it was not a genuine CIF contract. The two special clauses in the contract not only contradicted the nature of CIF term, but also disagreed with the practices of international justice and arbitration. Under Incoterms 2000, CIF means that the seller delivers when the goods pass the ship’s rail at the port of shipment. The seller must pay the costs and freight necessary to bring the goods to the named port of destination. But the risk of loss of or damage to the goods, as well as any additional costs due to events occurring after the time of delivery, are transferred from the seller to the buyer. Under this term, the buyer must make payment against documents rather than against the arrival of the goods at the port of destination, provided that the seller has fulfilled his delivery obligations and presented the required documents. However, this contract not only set a limit to the date of arrival, but also stipulated that the buyer was entitled to cancel the contract or return the payment that had already been made. Evidently, the restrictive date of arrival served not as the date of payment, but as a condition of payment. Therefore, legally the contract was not a genuine CIF contract as it made physical delivery a condition of payment. Chapter 6 International Cargo Transport 6.7.2 1) D 2) C 3) D 4) B 5) C 6) C 7) B 8) A 9) A 10) B 6.7.3 1) T 2) T 3) F 4) F 5 ) T 6) T 7) F 8) T 9) T 10) F 6.7.4 cargo / manifest / bills of lading / consignments / documents / insurance policy / commercial invoice / Customs and Excise Clearing and forwarding / transportation / loading and unloading / dock services shipping marks / stenciled / identifying / unloaded / inspected / cleared / destination 6.7.5 Analysis on Case 1: Company B should compensate Company C, because the consignee only relies on the B/L to protect his right in transportation. Once the bill of lading is transferred to a third party, the carrier cannot use the discrepancy in content on the B/L and the actual condition as an excuse to defend a third party B/L holder. If the carrier issues a clean B/L, the carrier is responsible for delivering the described goods to the consignee. In this case, Company B should compensate Company C before making claims against Company A for payment. Analysis on Case 2: The issuing bank was justified in doing so because the B/L should be issued by Cosco instead of the agent according to the credit. In this case, however, there was no Cosco (or its branch) in Shantou and Shantou Cosco Container Transportation Co. was its only agent of Cosco in Shantou, thus the B/L clause amended as “B/L can be issued by Cosco or its agent”. Chapter 7 Cargo Transport Insurance 7.8.2 1) B 2) A 3) A 4) D 5) D 6) B 7) C 8) D 9) A 10) A 7.8.3 1) T 2) T 3) T 4) T 5) F 6) T 7) T 8) F 9) F 10) T 7.8.4 1) 共同海损 2) 单独海损 3) 保险单 4) 平安险 5) 偷窃、提货不着险 6) 仓至仓条款 7)保险费 8) 近因原则 9) 中国保险条款 10) 水渍险 7.8.5 Analysis on Case 1: (1) and (3) belong to particular average, whereas (2), (4) and(5) belong to general average, because the losses of (1) and (3) were caused by the fire directly and the losses and expenses of (2), (4) and(5) were caused intentionally for the safety of the ship and the consignments. Analysis on Case 2: If the goods are exported on CIF basis, the insurance company should undertake to compensate for the loss, because the coverage scope of F.P.A. includes partial or total loss consequent from falling of entire package or packages into sea during loading. However, if the goods are exported on FOB or CFR basis, the buyer should effect insurance. Before the goods pass alongside the ship at the loading port, the seller still has not transferred the risk of loss to the buyer, and the buyer still has no insurable interest. Therefore, the insurance company shall not be responsible for the compensation. Instead, the seller should be responsible for the loss of the goods. Chapter 8 International Payments 8.7.2 1)延付信用证— b 2)红条款信用证 — d 3)光票信用证— a 4)不可撤销信用证 — c 5)保兑信用证— e 6) 即期汇票 — f 7)付款交单 — g 8) 赊账 — i 9)预付现金 — j 10)保函 — h 8.7.3 1) B 2) A 3) C 4) A 5) A 6) A 7) B 8) B 9) D 10) B 11) B 12) C 13) A 14) B 15) B 8.7.4 1) F 2) F 3) T 4) T 5) T 6) F 7) F 8) F 9) F 10) T 11) F 12) T 13) F 14) T 15) T 8.7.5 Analysis on Case 1: D/P and D/A are two types of collection. The latter bears more risk than the former for the exporter. Under D/A, once the importer obtains transport documents, he can take delivery of the goods. If the importer fails to make payment at maturity, the exporter will lose both the goods and the payment. In this case, the exporter should have realized the risk of changing D/P into D/A. According to UCR522, Article 11, once the principal (the exporter) has given clear instructions, banks assume no responsibility for any consequence thus incurred. All is to be borne by the principal himself. The lessons drawn from this case are: 1) Collection is based on commercial credit. That is to say, the bank does not assume primary liability to make payment, and whether the principal can obtain the payment depends on the importer’s credibility. Therefore, only when doing business with an importer of good reputation can the exporter choose payment by D/A. 2) Under collection, the transport documents should not be made out to order of the importer, but should be made out to order and blank endorsed to avoid the importer's picking up the goods directly and to facilitate the bank's negotiation of the transport documents. 3) D/P is always a better choice than D/A. For substantial deals, a combination of D/P and D/A is recommended. Payment by collection should be avoided by all means in substantial export transactions. Analysis on Case 2: It is stipulated in UCPS00 Article 37 that “The description of the goods in the commercial invoice must correspond with the description in the Credit. In all other documents, the goods may be described in general terms not inconsistent with the description of the goods in the Credit.” Therefore, the name and description of the goods in the commercial invoice must fully comply with that in the credit, or the issuing bank will be offered a reason to refuse to pay. This case clearly shows that the banks involved in credit operations do not examine the actual conditions of the goods. Although the exporter had shipped the goods better than those provided in the credit, the bank still followed the principle of “dealing with documents and not with the goods” and “seeing that documents appear on their face to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit”. No wonder the issuing bank refused to make payment. Chapter 9 Inspection, Claims, Force Majeure and Arbitration 9.7.2 1) F 2) T 3) F 4) F 5) F 6) F 7) T 8) F 9) F 10) F 9.7.3 Procedures of Arbitration 9.7.4 1) B 2) A 3) A 4) C 5) A 6) A 7) C 8) C 9) D 10) B 9.7.5 Analysis on Case 1: Company A cannot be exempted from delivery obligation and cancel the contract because of force majeure. Force majeure events and consequences are uncontrollable, unpredictable, unavoidable and insurmountable. Although flood can be a force majeure event, the flood in one wheat production place cannot cause Company A’s inability to provide the wheat, and he can buy wheat elsewhere. Company A can overcome the bad influence of flood, so the flood here is not a force majeure event and it cannot lead to Company A’s exemption of delivery obligation. Analysis on Case 2: Even though Company Y should be responsible for the non-operation, Company Y’s refusal is reasonable. The crux is the period for claim. The period for claim refers to the effective period in which the claimant can make a claim against the party in breach. Claims beyond the agreed effective period can be refused by the party in breach. Therefore, the claim period should be reasonably fixed. Generally, a period that is too long may put the seller under heavy responsibility and a period that is too short may make it impossible for the buyer to file a claim. In addition, a detailed stipulation in respect of the starting date for making a claim should also be included in the clause. In this case, the claim was made beyond the agreed effective period. So Company Y’s refusal is reasonable. Chapter 10 The Performance of the Contract 10.6.2 1) The bank and the s