Complaints caused by not delivering according
问题详情
Complaints caused by not delivering according to the time and quantity
In the fall of 2006 ,one of our trading companies concluded a substantial rice business with an old customer in Africa. The terms of delivery are : shipment is to be made in equal monthly lots beginning from December,2006 to June,2007 and payment is to be made by irrevocable letter of credit 60 days after the date of the bill of lading. The customer established the L/C in time and all particulars of the rice, such as the name , specifications , unit price,total price and total quantity are in conformity with the contract. But the terms of shipment only stated " the latest date of shipment is June 30 ,to be shipped in several lots".
The staff in our trading company made the first shipment in December according to the quantity stated in the contract. However in order to export more and eam more foreign exchange earlier, they advanced the time of shipment regardless the shipment terms stipulated in the contract. In January 2007 , our company shipped the quantity of the first quarter once , and in February made the third shipment for the rest quantity that should be delivered in the second quarter, since our staff had not found any specifications "shipment is to be made in equal lots" in the L/C. At the same time our bank negotiated against presentation of the stipulated documents and subsequently asked the opening bank to pay for the goods. The opening bank examined the L/C and confirmed that the L/C had no error in it.
After receiving the shipping advice, the African customer found that the delivered quantity of the rice both in the second lot and third lot were not in accordance with the shipment terms stipulated in the contract, so a claim was filed by the customer against our trading company for default shipment. The amount claimed involved the added fees of chartering warehouse for the delivered goods, the interest and other charges etc. The two parties negotiated the compensation for several times, finally our company accepted the opposing party's opinion and agreed that the purchase price for the last two lots was to be paid four months later, that meant our company would receive the payment a few months later than che original stated time. According to Lhe current price in the international market at that time, our trading company suffered the loss equivalent to 10 percent of the original selling price.
Questions :
(1) What is the relationship between the letter of credit and the transaction contract?
(2) Which proof must the two parties concerned base on when they perform their obligations?
(Translate the case into Chinese and then answer the question)
Helpful hint: It is stipulated in Article 4 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits that "in credit operations all parties concerned deal in documents and not in goods , service and/or other performance to which the documents may relate" .
参考答案
[翻译]未按时按量交货导致索赔案
2006年秋,我方某贸易公司与阿尔及利亚一老客户签订了一笔大米销售生意,交货条件为2006年12月起至2007年6月,每月按等量装运大米,凭不可撤销信用证自提单日后60天付款。
客户按时开来信用证,信用证上有关商品品名、规格、单价、总金额和总数量均与合同相符,但装运条件只规定“最迟装运期为6月30日,分数批装出”。
我贸易公司经办人员于12月按合同原定的等量装出第一批货物。因为经办人员没有在信用证中发现“按等量装运”的规定,为了早出口早收汇,他不顾合同的原定装运条款,在2007年1月将第一季度的数量一批装清,2月第三次装船,将第二季度应交数量一批装清。同时我方银行凭单议付,先后向开证行索汇,开证行审核单证认可无误。
非洲客户接到装船通知后,发现第二批和第三批数量与合同不符,即向我公司提出违背装运条款的索赔。索赔金额包括租仓费、利息和其他增加的费用等。经过双方反复协商,最后我贸易公司接受对方意见,同意将第二批和第三批货款推迟几个月后结算。按当时国际市场价算,我贸易公司遭受了10%的损失。
请问:(1)信用证与交易合同之间的关系是什么?
(2)交易双方履行自身义务的依据是什么?
(1) According to the business procedure in foreign trade transactions, after the two parties signed the contract, the buyer may apply to the bank for opening the relevant letter of credit according to the specifications stated in the contract.AII items in the letter of credit must be in compliance with the contract, that is to say, the letter of credit made out should be on the basis of the contract.But from legal opinion, business contract and letter of credit are two respectively separate legal documents.
(2) It is stipulated in Article 4 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits that "in credit operations all parties concerned deal in documents, and not in goods, service and/or other performance to which the documents may relate " .That is to say the essential function of the letter of credit is that banks issuing letters of credit deal in documents not in merchandise and have nothing to do with the contract.They have no legal obligation whether the goods comply with the contract.Therefore, the contract is the proof to the rights and obligations of the two parties concerned.