管理研究： 从一起国际贸易案例看配额制引起的贸易纠纷及处理
绪言
2007年11月18日，笔者收到一个名字叫sherman的读者的电子信件，他要求笔者提供一起国际贸易纠纷案例方面的参考和建议。阅读该案例后，笔者感觉具有普遍性，因此写成文章，以希望对更多的人有所参考和帮助。
其提供的案例原文是英文，如下：
Buyer and seller entered into a contract for the sale of sugar from the Philippines to New York on CIF terms. They added language to the contract that delivery was to be “at a customary safe wharf or refinery at New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore to be designated by the buyer.” Before the sugar arrived, the United States placed a quota on sugar imports. The sugar was not allowes to be imported and was placed in a warehouse. The buyer refused the documents and the seller sued, claiming that the import restriction was no excuse for the buyer’s nonpayment. The buyer argued that the language calling for delivery to a U.S. port converted a shipment contract into a destination contract.
Question: 1. was this a CIF contract or a destination contract?
2.What was the effect of the additional shipping language used by the parties?
3. Why should the parties not attempt to modify a trade term or add other delivery language?
Looking forward to your reply! Thank you!
笔者大体看了看，案例的意思大概是说买卖双方签定了一份从菲律宾到美国的CIF格式的国际贸易合同，是买卖糖的。该合同增加了附加条款，附加条款约定在买方指定的纽约、费城、巴尔的摩的工厂或码头进行安全交付。但在货物运输途中，美国方面开始对糖的进口实行进口配额制。糖被禁止进口滞留在仓库，买方拒绝了收取单据。而卖方则说“限制进口的食品”不能成为买方拒绝付款的理由，买方称附加条款要求将货物运送至美国港口已经默认装运合同为到达合同。
-
注意：本网所刊登的文章，均仅代表作者个人观点，并不代表本网立场。