国际经济法期末考试总结

国际经济法期末考试总结一.Explainthelegaltermsofart.1.Condition:amajortermofacontract,whichisregardedasbeingoftheessenceofthecontract.Breachofaconditionisafundamentalbreachofcontractwhichentitlestheinjuredpartytotreatthecontractasdischarged.2.Anticipatorybreach:abreachofcontractcausedbyaparty’santicipatoryrepudiation,i.e.,unequivocallyindicatingthatthepartywillnotperformwhenperformanceisdue.Underthesecircumstances,thenonbreachingpartymayelecttotreattherepudiationasanimmediatebreachandsuefordamages.3.NachfristisaGermantermdescribingthesituationinwhichtheinnocentpartysendsafinalnoticetothebreachingpartyrequestinghimorhertoperformthecontractualobligationwithinaspecifiedperiodoftime.4.Theparoleevidenceruleexcludesevidenceoforalagreementwhichcontradictsorvariesthetermsofasubsequentorcontemporaneouswrittencontract.thepremiseofwhethertoapplytheparoleevidenceis：1）musthaveawrittencontract2)thewrittencontractbecomeeffectiveorhavelegallybinding;3）thewrittencontractispartiesfinalandallthemeaningexpression.二.MultipleChoicesQuestions1.Thelawwhichmayaffectacontractfortheinternationalsaleofgoodscomesfrom:(ACD)A.InternationalconventionsB.thecontinentallawC.CustomsD.domesticlaws2.Theseareessentialelementsinaninternationalsaleofgoods:(BCD)A.ThereisanexchangeofgoodsB.thesubjectmatterofisgoodsC.ThereisasaleD.thesaleisinvolvinginternationalelements3.FASmeans:(AD)A.ThesellerisrequiredtoclearthegoodsforexportB.ThebuyerisresponsibleforobtainingallexportpermitsC.ThesellermakescontractofcarriageD.Thebuyerisresponsibleformakingcontractofcarriage4.Thetermswhichcanbeusedonlyforcarriageofgoodsbymaritimeandinlandwaterwaytransportare:(BD)A.FCAB.CFRC.CIPD.DEQ5.TheCISGdoesnotapplyto:(ABCD)A.SalesofelectricityB.salesbyauctionC.aconsultingcontractD.theliabilityofthesellerfordeathorpersonalinjurycausedbythegoodstoanyperson.6.DEQmeans:(CD)A.ThesellerisrequiredtoclearthegoodsforimportB.ThebuyerisresponsibleforobtainingallexportpermitsC.ThesellermakescontractofcarriageD.Thebuyerisresponsibleforrisksafterdelivery7.Thetermswhichcanbeusedforallmodesoftransportare:(AC)A.FCAB.CFRC.CIPD.DEQ8.TheCISGdoesnotapplyto:(ABCD)A.SalesofshipsB.salesonexecutionC.servicescontractD.theliabilityofthesellerforpersonalinjurycausedbythegoodstoanyperson.9.UndertheCodeart52,acontractisinvalidifitis:(ABCD)A.concludedthroughtheuseoffraudorduressbyonepartytodamagetheinterestsoftheStateB.aresultofaconspiracytoharmtheinterestofthestateC.harmfultopublicinterestD.incontraventionoflaw10.Apartyisentitledtoterminateacontractinanyofthefollowingsituations:(BD)A.theotherpartyhaslosthisorherbusinessreputationB.thepurposeofthecontractcannotberealizedduetoforcemajeureC.theotherparty’sstateofbusinesshasseriouslydeterioratedD.thepurposeofthecontractcannotberealizedduetoanotherbreachingact11.Anobligormaysuspendtheperformanceofhisorherobligationsinanyofthefollowingsituations:(ACD)A.theotherparty’sstateofbusinesshasseriouslydeterioratedB.theconductoftheotherpartyinpreparingtoperformC.theotherpartyhaslosthisorherbusinessreputationD.theexistenceofpossibilityoftheotherpartylosinginhisorherabilitytoperform12.Themeaningof‘fundamentalbreach’undertheCISGcanbeunderstoodasfollows:(BCD)A.thepartiesarenotabletodefinethemeaningintheircontractB.afundamentalbreachisdeterminedbyobjectivetestunderart25C.underart25thedetrimentaleffectofthebreachmustbeforeseeablebythebreachingpartyD.art25appearstorequireanabilitytoforeseetheextentofthedetrimentflowingfromabreach.13.ThedeliverypointunderFOB,whichisthesameunder:(BD)A.FCAB.CFRC.CIPD.CIF14.TheCISGdoesnotapplyto:(ABCD)A.SalesofconsumergoodsB.salesofmoneyC.aconsultingcontractD.anylegalissueconcerningthevalidityofacontract.15.AshasalwaysbeenunderlinedbyICC,Incotermsdealonlywith:(BCD)A.therelationbetweensellersandbuyersunderthecontractofcarriageB.therelationbetweensellersandbuyersunderthecontractofsaleC.theseller'sobligationtoplacethegoodsatthedisposalofthebuyerD.thebuyer'sobligationtotakedelivery16.Ifthesellerhasdeliveredgoodsbeforethedatefordelivery,hemay,uptothatdate,(ABCD)A.deliveranymissingpartB.makeupanydeficiencyinthequantityofthegoodsdelivered,C.delivergoodsinreplacementofanynon-conforminggoodsdeliveredD.remedyanylackofconformityinthegoodsdelivered17.UndertheHamburgRules,thecarrierisresponsibleforthesafetyofgoodsfrom:(B)A.tackletotackleB.porttoportC.doortodoorD.tackletoport三.ShortAnswerQuestions1.Seller,whoseplaceofbusinessisinStateA.andBuyer,whoseplaceofbusinessisinStaleB.enterintoacontractthatstipulatesthattheUNConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleofGoodsapplies.NeitherStateAnorStateBisacontractingstate.DoestheConventionapply?No,theConventiondoesnotapply.(2marks)(1)ThisConventionappliestocontractsofsaleofgoodsbetweenpartieswhoseplacesofbusinessareindifferentStates:(a)whentheStatesareContractingStates;or(b)whentherulesofprivateinternationallawleadtotheapplicationofthelawofaContractingState.(4marks)ThisConventionappliesonlytocontractsconcludedonorafterthedatewhentheConventionentersintoforceinrespectoftheContractingStatesreferredtoinsubparagraph(1)(a)ortheContractingStatereferredtoinsubparagraph(1)(b)ofarticle1.(2marks)2.OnApril4,CompanyX,withitsplaceofbusinessinChina,sentanofferbye-mailtoCompanyY,withitsplaceofbusinessinAustralian.Theofferconcerned50,000metershand-printedcottonclothandsaiditwouldremainopenuntilApril30.OnApril10,CompanyYansweredbye-mail:"Thepriceistoohigh,andwearenotinterestedintheoffer."But,onApril20,themanagerofCompanyYchangedhismindandsentanothere-mailtoaccepttheApril4offer.IsthereanycontractbetweenCompanyXandCompanyY?SincebothChinaandAustralianareContractingStatestotheCISG,accordingtoArticlel(l)(a)wouldapplyhere.(2marks)Afterreceivingtheofferof50,000metershand-printedcottoncloth,onApril10,CompanyYstatedthattheywerenotinterestedintheoffer,whichrejectedtheoffer.(2marks)OnApril20,theemailsenttoaccepttheApril4offershouldberegardedasanewofferinsteadofacceptance.(2marks)Therefore,therewasnocontractbetweenCompanyXandCompanyY.(2marks)3.Mr.Nelson,themanagerofaUScompany,enteredintoacontractwithanItaliancompany,Roma,toordersomeleathersuitcases.TheGoodsweredeliveredontime,butwithsomeofthezippersonthesuitcasesdefective.Mr.NelsoncontactedRomaandgaveanoticethathewantedtocancelthecontract.Romarespondedthattheyonlycangiveareductionintheprice.Whoislegallyright?Romawaslegallyright.(2marks)ThedefectivenessofsomeofthezippersonthesuitcasescouldnotaccounttoafundamentalbreachundertheCISGArticle25(4marks)ThereforeMr.Nelsonhadnorighttocancelthecontractbutcouldhaveotherremedies,suchasreducingtheprice.(2marks)4.Selleragreedtoship10,000tonsofpotatoesFOBTacoma,Washington,toBuyerinJapan.BuyerdesignatedtheSSRussettotakedeliveryatpier7inTacoma.Ontheagreeddatefordelivery,Sellerdeliveredthepotatoestopier7,buttheshipwasnotatthepier.Becauseanothershipusingthepierwasslowinloading,theRussethadtoanchoratamooringbuoyintheharborandSellerhadtoarrangeforalightertotransportthepotatoesincontainerstotheship.ThelightertiedupalongsidetheRussetandacablefromtheship'sboomwasattachedtothefirstcontainer.Asthecontainerbegantocrosstheship'srailthecablesnapped.Thecontainerthenfellontherail,teeteredbackandforthforawhile,andfinallycrasheddownthesideoftheshipandcapsizedthelighter.Allofthepotatoesweredumpedintothesea.BuyernowsuesSellerforfailuretomakedelivery.(1)IsSellerliable?(2)Suppose,thecontracthadbeenFASTacoma.WouldSellerbeliable?(1)TheSellerisliable.(1marks)"FreeonBoard"meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenthegoodspasstheship'srailatthenamedportofshipment.Thesellermust,subjecttotheprovisionsofB5,bearallrisksoflossofordamagetothegoodsuntilsuchtimeastheyhavepassedtheship'srailatthenamedportofshipment.Thismeansthatthebuyerhastobearallcostsandrisksoflossofordamagetothegoodsfromthatpoint.(3marks)(2)Suppose,thecontracthadbeenFASTacoma.TheSellerwouldnotbeliable.(1marks)"FreeAlongsideShip"meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenthegoodsareplacedalongsidethevesselatthenamedportofshipment.Thesellermust,subjecttotheprovisionsofB5,bearallrisksoflossofordamagetothegoodsuntilsuchtimeasThesellermustplacethegoodsalongsidethevesselnominatedbythebuyer.Thismeansthatthebuyerhastobearallcostsandrisksoflossofordamagetothegoodsfromthatmoment.(3marks)5.AsellercontractedfororangestobesentfromSpaintoEngland.BeforethecontractofcarriagewasconcludedtheshipownerspromisedtheshippersorallythattheywouldarriveinLondonby30thNovember1947,buttheydidnotactuallyarriveuntilDecember5th.Thearrivaldatewasimportanttotheshippernotmerelybecausetheorangesmightdeteriorate,butalsobecauseimportdutywasimposedfromDecember1st.However,thebillofladingalsohadaprintedlibertyclauseallowingthecarriertostopontheway.ThecarrierdidstoponthewayandthusdidnotgettoLondonuntil5December.Thesellersuedthecarrierfordeviatingfromtherouteandthecarrierreliedonthewrittenlibertyclause.Theissueofthecasewasthattheactualtermsofthecontractwere—weretheythoseinthebillofladingortheoralagreementsthatweremade.Isthebillofladinginitselfacontract?Althoughabillofladingmayincludethefulltermsofthecontractbetweentheconsignor(theseller)andthecarrier(theshippingcompany)butitisnotthecontractitself.(2marks)Thelogicalisbecauseinthemostcasesthecontractwillhavebeenmadebeforethebillofladingisissued.Ineffect,itisverygoodevidenceofthecontractofcarriageanditcanberebutted.Thereforethepartiescanshowthattheactualcontractcontainsdifferentterms.(4marks)Inthecasethesellerprovedthattherewasanactuallyverbalagreementbetweenthem,sothecarrierwasinbreachofthecontractofcarriageandshouldbeliable.(2marks)6.OnDecember1,SellersenttoBuyeranoffertosell5,000widgetstoBuyerfor$25apiece.Theofferslated:"'TheofferwillremainopenuntilDecember31."OnDecember10,Buyeranswered:"Thepriceistoohigh,Idon'tacceptyouroffer."Then.onDecember15,Buyerchangedhismindandsentatelegramstating:"'IacceptyourDecember1offerafterall."Sellerreplied:"Youracceptanceistoolate.sinceyoualreadyrejectedtheoffer."Inturn,Buyeranswered:"Theacceptanceisgood,sinceyoupromisedtokeepyourofferopenuntilDecember31."IsthereacontractundertheCISG?No,thereisnotacontract.(2marks)Afterreceivingtheofferof5,000widgets,onDecember10,buyerstatedthatThepricewastoohigh,hedidn'taccepttheoffer.,whichrejectedtheoffer.(2marks)OnDecember15,theemailsenttoaccepttheDecember1offershouldberegardedasanewofferinsteadofacceptance.(2marks)Therefore,therewasnocontractbetweensellerandbuyer.(2marks)8.AcontractforsaleofChristmastreelightswasestablished,inwhichaletterofcreditwasused.Thecreditrequiredthesellertoproduceacertificateofinspection,alongwithotherdocuments.Thiswasdoneandtheissuingbankpaidagainstthem.Thebankthensoughtreimbursementbutthebuyerrefused,contendingthatthereshouldhavebeenaninspectiontomakesurethatthelightswereworking.Itshouldbenotedthatthecertificateofelectricalinspectionwasrequiredbythecontractbutnotspecifiedintheletterofcredit.(1)Canthebankseekreimbursementfromthebuyer?(2)Howtosolvetheproblembetweenthesellerandbuyer?（1）thebankcanseekreimbursementfromthebuyer.BecauseThemainissueiswhetherthebanksareliabletotheapplicantwhenthecommercialdocumentsorbillsofexchangewhichappeartobeconsistentwiththetermsandconditionsofthecreditarenotgenuine.Article13ofUCP500requiresthatbanks'mustexaminealldocumentsstipulatedintheCreditwithreasonablecare,toascertainwhetherornottheyappear,ontheirface,tobeincompliancewiththetermsandconditionsoftheCredit'.Thebanks'responsibility-isLimitedtotheostensibleconformityofthedocuments.However,itmustbeemphasisedthatthedoctrineofstrictcompliancerequiresabanktoensureonlythatthedocumentsappeartobeconsistentwiththetermsofthecredit(art14ofUCP500),andthusgiveriseneithertoadutytoascertaintheconformityofthegoods,noranobligationtoinvestigateanallegedfraud.'Second,thecomplexityotinternationaltrademeansthatthebanksasagentsofthebuyerorsellerarenotabletounderstandandappreciatealltechnicalterms(someofwhichareinterchangeable)orthetechnicaldifferencesbetweengoodsofsimilarfunctionsornature.(6marks)（2）Thesellersolvestheproblembetweentheminaccordancewiththeircontract.(2marks)9.RetailerinStateAdecidestogointothecatalogsalesbusinessinStateB.BothcountriesarepartiestotheCISG.RetailerpurchasesamailinglistfromAceCreditCardCompany.Thelisthasthenamesandaddressesof500,000personsowningAcecreditcardsinStateB,andRetailerusesthistopreparemailinglabels.JohnQ.PublicreceivesacatalogaddressedtohimpersonallyfromRetailer.Thecatalogdescribesvarioustypesofwidgetsandgivespricesforeachone.Hastheretailermadeanoffertosellthewidgets?IfJohnaccepts,willtherebeabindingcontractundertheCISG?No,theretailerhasnotmadeanoffer.(2marks)Underart14(1)oftheCISG,Aproposalforconcludingacontractaddressedtooneormorespecificpersonsconstitutesanofferifitissufficientlydefiniteandindicatestheintentionoftheofferortobeboundincaseofacceptance.Aproposalissufficientlydefiniteifitindicatesthegoodsandexpresslyorimplicitlyfixesormakesprovisionfordeterminingthequantityandtheprice.Accordingtothefacts,itisaninvitationtotreat.(4marks)(2)No,ifJohnaccepts,therewillnotbeabindingcontractundertheCISG.itisanoffer.(2marks)10.BuyerreceivedaletterinhermailonJanuary1offeringtosellBuyer5,000widgetsfor$20apiece.Seller’sletterclosedwiththefollowingstatement:IknowthatthisofferissoattractivethatIwillassumethatyouacceptitunlessIhearotherwisebyJanuary31.”Buyerdidnotreply.SellershippedthewidgetsonFebruary1.WhatareBuyer’sresponsibilitiesundertheCISG?Firstthebuyerhasrightstorefusegoods.(2marks)Afterreceivingtheofferof50,000widgetsfor$20apiece,Buyerdidnotreply,whichrejectedtheoffer.(2marks)Underart18(1)oftheCISG,Silenceorinactivitydoesnotinitselfamounttoacceptance.(2marks)Therefore,therewasnocontractbetweenSellerandBuyer.(2marks)11.BuyerandSellerenteredintoacontractgovernedbytheCISGforSellertodeliverasophisticatedcomputertoBuyerbyJanuary1.Sellerwaslateindeliveringthemachine,soBuyerwiredSelleronJanuary12.Anxioustotakedeliveryofthecomputer.HopethatitarrivesbyFebruary1.”SellerdeliversthecomputeronFebruary5,butBuyerrefusestoacceptitanddeclaresthatthecontractisavoidedbecauseSellerfailedtohandoverthecomputerbeforetheFebruary1datespecifiedintheJanuary2telegram.BothBuyerandSelleragreethattherehasnotbeenafundamentalbreach.IsBuyerabletoavoidthecontractunderthesecircumstances?Yes,thebuyerisabletoavoidthecontract.(2marks)UnderCISG,abuyermayavoidacontractifeither(1)thesellercommitsafundamentalbreachor(2)thebuyergivestheselleraNachfristnoticeandthesellerrejectsitordoesnotperformwithintheperioditspecifies.Abuyer’sNachfristnoticeisthefixingof“anadditionalperiodoftimeofreasonablelengthforperformancebythesellerofhisobligations.”.(4marks)Theperiodmustbedefinite,andtheobligationtoperformwithinthatperiodmustbeclear.OncetheNachfristperiodhasrun,oroncethefundamentalbreachbecomesclear,thebuyerhasareasonabletimeinwhichtoavoidthecontract.(2marks)13.CeeCompanyinCanadaagreedtosell10,000gallonsofmaplesyruptoDeeCompanyinDenmark.DeeCompanyarrangedforaletterofcreditwithitsbankinCopenhagen.Thecreditrequiredpaymentonthepresentationofabillofladingandaninspectioncertificateissuedbyaqualitycontrolcompany,Vigilance,Inc.,ofToronto.CeeCompanyproducedboththebillandtheinspectioncertificate.TheCopenhagenbankrefusedtopaybecausetheinspectioncertificatestatedthat“basedonasampletakenfrom5gallons,themaplesyrupisnotofthekindordered.”Thebankarguedthatthecertificate,onitsface,didnotcertifytheregularityoftheentireorder.Wasthebankcorrectinrefusingpayment?Thebankwascorrect.(2marks)BecauseThemainissueiswhetherthebanksareliabletotheapplicantwhenthecommercialdocumentsorbillsofexchangewhichappeartobeconsistentwiththetermsandconditionsofthecreditarenotgenuine.Article13ofUCP500requiresthatbanks'mustexaminealldocumentsstipulatedintheCreditwithreasonablecare,toascertainwhetherornottheyappear,ontheirface,tobeincompliancewiththetermsandconditionsoftheCredit'.Thebanks'responsibility-isLimitedtotheostensibleconformityofthedocuments.However,itmustbeemphasisedthatthedoctrineofstrictcompliancerequiresabanktoensureonlythatthedocumentsappeartobeconsistentwiththetermsofthecredit(art14ofUCP500),andthusgiveriseneithertoadutytoascertaintheconformityofthegoods,noranobligationtoinvestigateanallegedfraud.'Second,thecomplexityofinternationaltrademeansthatthebanksasagentsofthebuyerorsellerarenotabletounderstandandappreciatealltechnicalterms(someofwhichareinterchangeable)orthetechnicaldifferencesbetweengoodsofsimilarfunctionsornature.(6marks)14.OnJanuary1,SellersentalettertoBuyerofferingtoselltoBuyer5,000widgetsfor$25apiece.Theletteralsostated:ThisofferisbindingandirrevocableuntilFebruary1.”OnJanuary5,priortoBuyer’sreceiptoftheletter,sellercalledBuyeronthetelephoneandleftthefollowingmessageontheansweringmachineatBuyer’splaceofbusiness:IgnoremyletterofJanuary1.Ihavedecidedtowithdrawtheoffercontainedinit.”OnJanuary7,afterlisteningtoheransweringmachineandreadingtheletterthatarrivedthatsameday,BuyersentSellerthefollowingtelegram:IacceptyourofferofJanuary1.”IsthereacontractundertheCISG?No,thereisnotacontract.(2marks)Afterreceivingtheofferof5,000widgets,OnJanuary7,sellerwithdrewtheoffer.(2marks)Article15(2)providesthatanoffer,evenifitisirrevocable,maybewithdrawnifthewithdrawalreachestheoffereebeforeoratthesametimeastheoffer.(2marks)Therefore,therewasnocontractbetweensellerandbuyer.(2marks)15.DealerintheUnitedStatesownedacargoof10,000barrelsofoilthathadbeenshippedfromMexicoonJanuary1forarrivalintheUnitedStatesonFebruary1.OnJanuary15,DealerinformedBuyerthattheoilwasenrouteandtheyconcludedacontract.Onarrival,inspectionshowedthattheoilhadbeencontaminatedbyseawateratsomeindeterminatetimeduringthevoyage.AssumingtheCISGapplies,whobearstherisk?Buyerbearstherisk.(2marks)Article68providesthattheriskinrespectofgoodssoldintransitpassestothebuyerfromthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontract.However,ifthecircumstancessoindicate,theriskisassumedbythebuyerfromthetimethegoodswerehandedovertothecarrierwhoissuedthedocumentsembodyingthecontractofcarriage.16.SelleragreedtodeliverthreesoftwareprogramstoBuyerthatarespeciallydesignedforBuyer’sbusiness.ThefirstwastobedeliveredinJanuary,thesecondinFebruary,andthethirdinMarch.TheprogramdeliveredinJanuaryworkedfine,buttheonedeliveredinFebruarywasdefective.Itnotonlyfailedtofunctionproperly,italsomadetheothertwoprogramseffectivelyworthless.Sellerwasunabletocorrectthedefect,andnosuitablereplacementcouldbefoundfromanothersupplier.WhatCISGremediesareavailabletoBuyer?Thebuyermaydeclarethecontractavoidedinitsentirety.(2marks)BecauseArticle73(3)providesthatabuyerwhodeclaresthecontractavoidedinrespectofanydeliverymay,atthesametime,declareitavoidedinrespectofdeliveriesalreadymadeoroffuturedeliveriesif,byreasonoftheirinterdependence,thosedeliveriescouldnotbeusedforthepurposecontemplatedbythepartiesatthetimeoftheconclusionofthecontract.(4marks)AtthesametimeSellerwasunabletocorrectthedefect,andnosuitablereplacementcouldbefoundfromanothersupplier.(2marks)17.SellerinBombaysells5,000balesofcottontoBuyer,FOBLiverpool.SellertransportsthecottontotheBombayharborandtotheshipdesignatedbyBuyer,theSSAllthumbs.Duetoanerrorincounting,only4,987baleswereloaded.Theship’sbilloflading,however,showsaquantityof5,000bales.SellerthensignsoverthebillofladingtoBuyerinexchangeforpaymentinfullofthecotton.WhentheAllthumbsarrivesinLiverpool,thequantityerrorisdiscovered,andBuyersuestheshipforthelostvalueofthemissingbales.Istheshipliable?WoulditmatterifSelleradmittedthattheerrorwasnottheship’sfault,butthatofSeller?(1)Theshipisliable.(2marks)BecauseunderTheHamburgRules1.Ifthebillofladingcontainsparticularsconcerningthegeneralnature,leadingmarks,numberofpackagesofpieces,weightorquantityofthegoodswhichthecarrierorotherpersonissuingthebillofladingonhisbehalfknowsorhasreasonablegroundstosuspectdonotaccuratelyrepresentthegoodsactuallytakenoveror,wherea“shipped”billofladingisissued,loaded,orifhehadnoreasonablemeansofcheckingsuchparticulars,thecarrierorsuchotherpersonmustinsertinthebillofladingareservationspecifyingtheseinaccuracies,groundsofsuspicionortheabsenceofreasonablemeansofchecking.2.Ifthecarrierorotherper