国际商法案例

1. Seller, whose place of business is in State A, and Buyer, whose place of business is in State B, enter into a contract that stipulates that the CISG applies. Neither State A nor State B is a contracting state. Does the convention apply?

译文：营业地在A国的卖方和营业地在B国的买方签订了一份规定《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》适用的合同。 A国和B国都不是公约的缔约国。公约能适用吗？

分析：According to CISG PartⅠ（Article 1), CISG applies to contract for the international sale of goods-that is, the buyer and the seller must have their places of business in different states. In addition, either both of the states must be contracting parties to the convention or the rules of private international law must lead to the application of the law of a contracting state. In this situation, the rules of private international law stipulates that the contract applies to the law of a contracting state. As a result, the convention applies.

适用。根据CISG 第一部分第一章第一条第一款，公约适用于国际货物买卖合同，即买方和卖方必须在不同的国家拥有营业地，另外，两国均属公约的缔约国或国际私法规则必须导致适用某一缔约国法律。所以，即使A国和B国都不是公约的缔约国，但根据国际私法规则适用某一缔约国法律，公约仍可能适用。

This would depend upon the private international law rules of the state where a suit is brought to enforce the contract. CISG Article 1(2). If the local rules allow the parties to adopt the laws of a foreign jurisdiction by agreement, then the United Nations Convention would apply.

Chapter10 Case2 徐夏童

Retailer in State A decides to go into the catalog sales business in State B. Both countries are parties to the CISG. Retailer purchases a mailing list from Ace Credit Card Company. The list has the names and addresses of 500,000 persons owning Ace credit cards in State B, and Retailer uses this to prepare mailing labels. John Q. Public receives a catalog addressed to him personally from Retailer. The catalog describes various types of widgets and gives prices for each one. Has the retailer made an offer to sell the widgets? If John accepts, will there be a binding contract under the CISG?

A国的某零售商决定在B国开展目录销售业务。A，B两国都是《国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国。 零售商从Ace信用卡公司购买邮件列表。 该列表包含在州B中拥有Ace信用卡的500,000人的姓名和地址，零售商使用此信息来准备邮寄标签。 John Q. Public收到了一份来自零售商的目录。 该目录描述了各种类型的小部件，并为每个小部件提供价格。 零售商是否出售这些小部件是否为发出了要约？ 如果约翰接受，根据《国际货物销售合同公约》的规定，约翰先生和零售公司是否订立了具有约束力的合同呢？

解析： A国和B国均为《CISG》缔约国，因此该案适用《CISG》。 根据《CISG》第14条“向一个或一个以上的人提出的订立合同的建议，如果十分确定并且表明发价人在得到接受时承受约束的意旨，即构成发价。一个建议如果写明货物并且明示或暗示地规定数量和价格或规定如何确定数量和价格，即为十分确定。非向一个或一个以上特定的人提出的建议，仅应视为邀请做出发价，除非提出建议的人明确地表示相反的意向。”

一项订立合同的建议若要构成要约，它必须是向一个或一个以上的特定人发出的建议。向公众发布的建立通常被认为只是谈判的邀请。因此零售商出售这些小部件并非要约，而是谈判邀请。 零售商的行为构不成发出要约，因此约翰接受，此行为也不能视为双方订立了具有约束力的合同。

分析：No. Under Article 11, an offer must be “addressed to specific persons.” While the catalogue was addressed to a specific person, mail order retailers ordinarily intend for their catalogues to have as wide a circulation as possible, and they would be happy to have them passed on to others. The phrase “offers addressed to specific persons” actually means “offers restricted to the particular addressees.”

要约是向特定人发出的，表明要约人将要按一定的价格买卖特定货物意图的建议。而本案中A国零售商的邮件不是有效的要约，因为其未向特定人发出，因此A国零售商的邮件是要约邀请。即使John接受要约邀请也无法达成有效的合同。

No. Under Article 11, an offer must be “addressed to specific persons.” While the catalogue was addressed to a specific person, mail order retailers ordinarily intend for their catalogues to have as wide a circulation as possible, and they would be happy to have them passed on to others. The phrase “offers addressed to specific persons” actually means “offers restricted to the particular addressees.”

Chapter10 Case3 金灵

On January 1, Seller sent a letter to Buyer offering to sell to Buyer 5,000 widgets for $25 apiece.The letter also staded: " This offer is binding and irrevocable until February 1." On January 5, prior to Buyer's receipt of the letter, Seller called Buyer on the telephone and left the following message on the answering machine at Buyer's place of business:" Ignore of my letter of January 1. I have decided to withdraw the offer contained in it." On January 7, after listening to her answering machine and reading the letter that arrived that same day, Buyer sent Seller the following telegram:" I accept your offer in January 1." Is there a contract under the CISG?

1月1日，卖方致函买方，向买方出售5,000件小部件，每件25美元。这封信还表示：“直至2月1日,此优惠都具有约束力且不可撤销，。” 1月5日，在买方收到信件之前，卖方通过电话联系买方，并在买方营业地点的应答机上留下以下信息：“忽略我1月1日的来信。我已经决定撤回此次要约。” 1月7日，在听完电话答录机并阅读当天到达的信后，买方向卖方发送了以下电报：“我方接受你方于1月1日的要约。” 根据“国际货物销售合同公约”是否构成合同关系？

Answer: The contract isn't concluded because the offer sent has been withdrawn.

Analysis: For a proposal to be an offer, it must be addressed to " one or more specific persons". So according to this case, it is an offer. But an offer becomes effective only after it reaches the offeree. Thus, offers---including offers that promise that they are irrevocable---can be withdrawn before they reach the offeree. In this case, On January 5, prior to Buyer's receipt of the letter, Seller called Buyer on the telephone and left the following message on the answering machine at Buyer's place of business:" Ignore of my letter of January 1. I have decided to withdraw the offer contained in it." So the contract isn't concluded because the offer sent has been withdrawn.

The withdrawal was effective. CISG Article 15(2) states that firm offers may be withdrawn if the withdrawal reaches the offeree “before or at the same time” as the offer. Here the withdrawal reached the offeree before the offer, since the recorded withdrawal message was delivered to Buyer’s place of business prior to Buyer’s receipt of the offer. See Article 24.

Chapter10 Case4单思琪

On December 1, Seller sent Buyer an offer to sell 5,000 widgets to Buyer for 25 apiece. The offer stated: "The offer will remain open until December31." On December 10, Buyer answered: "the price is too high; I don't accept your offer." Then, on December 15, Buyer changed his mind and sent a telegram stating:"I accept your December 1 offer after all." Seller replied:"Your acceptance is too late, since you already rejected the offer." In return, Buyer answered: "The acceptance is good, you promised to keep your offer open until December 31." Is there a contract under the CISG?

12月1号，一买方向买方发价，计划以25美元每个售卖5000件工具给买方。报价中说，这份报价一直到12月31号之前都有效。12月10日，买方回复说报价太高，不接受发价。之后，在12月15日时买方改变了主意，发电报成同意接受12月1号的发价。但是卖方回复称买方接受发价太晚了，因为此前买方已经拒绝了此项发价。买方回复说，接受发价仍然是有效的，因为卖方承诺在12月31日之前发价都是有效的。根据CISG, 合同是否构成呢？

解析:

根据CISG, 合同已经构成

1.根据GISG第19条第2条规定，对发价表示接受但载有添加或不同条件的答复，如所载内容或不同条件在实质上并不变更该发价的条件，除发价人在不过分迟延的时间内以口头或书面通知反对其间的差异外，则构成接受。

2.根据案情，买方在规定的时间内(12月31日以前）提出接受发价，12月10日其对于发价的反对并不对12月15日其对于发价的接受造成实质性的影响，所以其对于发价的接受有效。

3.根据CISG第23条，合同于按照本公约的规定对发价的接受生效时订立，所以此案中合同订立。

分析：The offer was invalidated by the buyer's refusal and the contract was not established. According to the CISG Article 17, it clearly states that “an offer, even if it is irrevocable, is terminated when a rejection reaches the offeror.” Because the seller made an offer to the buyer on December 1. Although the offer was an offer with an acceptance deadline, the buyer rejected the offer on December 10 and the notice of rejection reached the offeror. Therefore, the offer made by the seller on December 1 was invalid. Therefore, the buyer made another acceptance on December 15. Since the offer was invalid, the acceptance was invalid and the contract was not established. However, we can regard the buyer's behavior as a new offer. At this time, the seller decides whether the contract is established or not. The contract was not established because the seller did not agree with the buyer's new offer. That means there isn’t a contract under the CISG.

要约因买方拒绝而失效，合同不成立。根据《国际货物销售合同公约》第17条，该条明确规定，“要约，即使是不可撤销的，在拒绝送达要约人时终止。” 因为卖方于12月1日向买方发出要约，虽然该要约属于附有承诺期限的要约，但买方在12月10日拒绝了要约，且该拒绝要约通知已到达要约人，因此卖方于12月1日发出的要约失效，故买方于12月15日再次发出承诺的行为，因要约已失效，所以承诺无效，合同不成立。

但我们可以视买方该行为为新的要约，此时，卖方决定着合同的成立与否。又因为卖方不同意买方的新要约，故合同不成立。即据联合国《国际货物销售合同公约》，买卖双方之间没有建立合同关系。

CISG Article 17 clearly states that “an offer, even if it is irrevocable, is terminated when a rejection reaches the offeror.” Because the rejection reached the Seller before the acceptance, the offer is rejected.

Chapter10 Case5 李瑾

Is Silence Acceptance Under the CISG?

Buyer received a letter in her mail on January 1 offering to sell Buyer 5,000 widgets for $20 apiece. Seller’s letter closed with the following statement: “I know that this offer is so attractive that I will assume that you accept it unless I hear otherwise by January 31.” Buyer did not reply. Seller shipped the widgets on February. What are Buyer’s responsibilities under the CISG? 国际货物买卖合同下，缄默是否构成接受？

1月1日，买家收到卖家的邮件，卖家同意以每件20美元的价格卖给买家5,000货物。卖家信件结尾写道“我知道这份报价很有吸引力，故假定你方同意，如有异议，请1月31日前告知。”买方未回复。卖方于2月1日发货。国际货物买卖合同下买方应负什么责任？

分析:Buyer need do nothing. According to CISG, the Article 18 (2) stated that “A statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an acceptance. Silence or inactivity does not in itself amount to acceptance.” Hence, the silence of Buyer doesn’t mean acceptance. Buyer takes no responsibility to the widgets.

买家无需承担责任。题目规定按照联合国《国际货物销售合同公约》解读该行为，而该公约第十（1）表明：“被发价人声明或做出其他行为表示同意一项发价，即是接受，缄默或不行动本身不等于接受。”可知，买方的不回复或缄默行为不等于接受，因此买家不必接收货物或承担任何责任。

Buyer need do nothing. Under CISG Article 18, an offeror cannot make silence or inactivity grounds for acceptance of his offer. Only if the offeree had agreed in advance that his silence or inactivity would constitute acceptance would there be a contract in this situation.

Chapter10 Case 6 王志刚

Modification of Contract and Reliance Under the CISG

Seller and Buyer entered into a written contract for the manufacture by Seller of 10000 widgets of a design specified by Buyer and set out in the contract. The contract also provided:” this contract may only be modified in a writing signed by both parties.” Before Seller began work on the widgets, Buyer and Seller agreed by telephone to a change in the specifications for 2500 of the widgets. Seller then produced and delivered the 2500 widgets as specified. Buyer refused to accept them because they did not conform to the specifications in the original contract. Assuming the CISG applies, who breached?

卖方和买方签订了一份书面合同，由卖方制造10000件由买方指定并在合同中规定的设计小部件。合同还规定：“本合同只能以双方签署的书面形式进行修改。”在卖方开始生产小部件之前，买方和卖方通过电话同意更改2500个小部件的规格。然后，卖方按照规定生产并交付了2500个小部件。买方拒绝接受，因为它们不符合原始合同中的规格。假设“销售公约”适用，谁违约了？

Analysis:

Buyer.

Article 29(2) says that “a contract in writing which contains a provision requiring any modification or termination by agreement to be in writing may not be otherwise modified or terminated by agreement.” It goes on to add, however, that “a party may be precluded by his conduct from asserting such a provision to the extent that the other party has relied on that conduct.” Here, clearly, Seller relied on Buyer’s conduct.

分析：在此案例中，我认为是买方违反了规定。CISG中第二十九条第一条款规定，合同只需双方当事人协议就可更改或终止。第二条款规定任何更改或根据协议终止必须以书面做出的书面合同，不得以任何其他方式更改或根据协议终止。但是，一方当事人的行为如经另一方当事人寄以信赖就不得坚持此项规定。

在此案例中，买方与卖方通过电话联系同意了更改2500件小部件的生产规格，买方此行为明显是在向卖方寄以信赖，卖方也是按照规定生产并交付了货物，尽管原始合同规定必须通过双方签署的书面文件进行条件的修改，但是在买方已寄以信赖的情况下，此项规定不得继续坚持，买方的拒收行为明显不符合规定。

Chapter10 Case 7 刘燕妮

Buyer and Seller entered into a contract governed by the CISG for Seller to deliver a sophisticated computer to Buyer by January 1. Seller was late in delivering the machine, so Buyer wired Seller on January 2:“Anxious to take delivery of the computer. Hope that it arrives by February 1.” Seller delivers the computer on February 5, but Buyer refuses to accept it and declares that the contract is avoided because Seller failed to hand over the computer before the February 1 date specified in the February 2 telegram. Both Buyer and Seller agree that there has not been a fundamental breach. Is Buyer able to avoid the contract under these circumstances?

买方和卖方达成了一个受联合国国际货物销售合同公约所约束的合同，合同的内容是，卖方要在1月1日之前将一台精密的电脑交付给买方。由于卖方未能按期交货，买方在1月2日发电报给卖方：“我们急于收到这台电脑，希望在2月1日之前能收到它。”卖方最终在2月5日交付了这台电脑，但是买方拒绝签收，并表示因为卖方没能按照1月2日电报所要求的那样，在2月1日之前交付电脑，该合同已经失效了。买卖双方都认为这不算根本违约。在这些情况下，买方能够使该合同无效吗？

Analysis: Yes, the Buyer is able to avoid the contract.

Under CISG, a Buyer may avoid a contract if either (1) the Seller commits a fundamental breach or (2) the Buyer gives the Seller a Nachfrist notice and the Seller rejects it or does not perform within the period it specifies. A Buyer’s Nachfrist notice is the fixing of “an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance by the Seller of his obligations.

The period must be definite, and the obligation to perform within that period must be clear. Once the Nachfrist period has run, or once the fundamental breach becomes clear, the Buyer has a reasonable time in which to avoid the contract.

In this case, although there is no fundamental breach, Seller didn’t deliver the computer on time as contracted. After Buyer gave notice to Seller and asked Seller to deliver the computer by February 1, Seller failed to deliver it by February 1 but on February 5, later than the required date.

买方可以使该合同无效。

在联合国国际货物销售合同公约下，买方可以在以下情况使合同无效化：（1）卖方做出根本违约；（2）买方向卖方发出宽限期通知，而卖方拒绝接受或者没有在规定期限内完成要求。买方的宽限期通知是一种解决办法，它给出一个额外的、长度合理的时间期限让卖方完成义务。

这个期限必须是给定的，并且在期限内完成的义务也必须是清晰的。一旦宽限期开始或者根本违约发生，买方有合理的时间来使合同无效化。

在这个案例中，即使不存在根本违约，卖方没有依据合同按时交货。在买方向卖方发出通知并要求卖方在2月1日之前交付电脑后，卖方没能如期交货，而是晚于要求的日期，在2月5日交货。

No. The notice Buyer gave Seller does not amount to an Article 47 Nachfrist notice, because it did not set a fixed date nor demand final performance by that date. The wire should have said something such as “The last date on which Buyer will accept delivery is February 1.”

Chapter 10 case 8 彭钦云

Risk of Loss Under the CISG

Dealers in the United States owned a cargo of 10,000 barrels of oil that has been shipped from Mexico on January 1 for arrival in the United States on February 1. On January 15，Dealer informed Buyer that the oil was en route and they concluded a contract. On arrival, inspection showed that the oil had been contaminated by seawater at some indeterminate time during the voyage. Assuming the CISG applies, who bear the risk?

美国的交易商有10000桶原油，于1月1日从墨西哥起运，2月1日到达美国。在1月15日，交易商通知买方原油尚在运输途中，然后双方签订了一份合同。货物到达后，经检验发现，货物在运输途中被海水污染。假设联合国《国际货物销售合同》适用，哪一方应该承担风险呢？

解析：应由买方承担风险。根据《国际货物销售合同》第68条：对于在运输途中销售的货物，从合同订立时起，风险就转移到买方承担。如果卖方在订立合同时已经知道或理应知道货物已经遗失或损坏，而他又不将这一事实告知买方，则这种遗失或损坏应由卖方负责。

此案例中，卖方已通知买方原油在运输途中，而后才订立合同，因此风险应由买方承担；而没有证据显示卖方在订立合同时已经得知原油已被污染，因此风险仍由买方承担。

Buyer. Article 68 says that the risk passed to Buyer at the time the contract was signed since the goods were already in transit. If Buyer has insurance, he may have a difficult time collecting on it, since the time when the damage occurred is uncertain. By agreement, Seller and Buyer could have agreed that the risk passed to Buyer at the outset of the voyage. For the purpose of asserting an insurance claim, this would have simplified matters.

Chapter 10 case 9 李新月

Avoidance of Installment Contracts Under the CISG

Seller agreed to deliver three software programs to Buyer that are specially designed for Buyer's business. The first was to be delivered in January, the second in February, and the third in March. The program delivered in January worked fine, but the one delivered in February was defective. It not only failed to function properly. It also made the other two programs effectively worthless. Seller was unable to correct the defect, and no suitable replacement could be found from another supplier. What CISG remedies are available to Buyer?

卖方同意向买方交付三个专门为买方业务设计的软件程序。第一个于1月交付，第二个将于2月交付，第三个将于3月交付。1月份交付的程序运行良好，但2月份交付的程序有缺陷。它不仅不能正常运行，还使得其他两个程序实际上毫无价值。卖方无法修正这一缺陷，也无法从其他供应商处找到合适的替代品。买方可获得CISG中的哪些救济？

解析：根据CISG规定，买方可享有的救济措施是（1）请求实际履行；（2）因根本性违反合同或不交付货物而解除合同；（3）减价；（4）拒绝提前交付；（5）拒绝接受多交的货物。

在本案例中，卖方交付的第二个程序有缺陷，不符合合同要求，且卖方已经无法采取补救办法履行其义务，也无法交付替代货物。

在这一情况下，根据CISG第50条规定，如果货物不符合同，不论价款是否已付，买⽅都可以减低价格，减价按实际交付的货物在交货时的价值与符合合同的货物在当时的价值两者之间的⽐例计算。

Under Article 73, Buyer may avoid the entire contract since the three programs are clearly interdependent. Seller will have to take back the programs delivered in January and February (and return the price Buyer paid), and Buyer may refuse delivery of the third (the March) program.

Chapter 10 Case 10: Damages for Breach of Contract Under CISG 程歆雯

Seller contracted to deliver 1,000 barrels of oil to Buyer for $14,000. When the oil arrived, 975barrels complied fully with the contract description. Twenty-five are contaminated and unacceptable. Oil in comparable barrels was available in the local market for a price of $18 a barrel in 25-barrel lots. Seller offered not to charge Buyer for the barrels. Is there a contract under CISG? If so, what payment is due to the Seller?

买卖双方签订合同，卖方应将总价值为14000美元共1000桶油发给买方。当油到达买方时，其中975桶油完全符合合同中的描述，但有25桶油因收到污染而拒收。这类油桶在当地市场上，以25桶为一批出售，每桶价值18美元。买方主动没对这25桶油收费。问：根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》（以下简称公约），该案例是否存在合同?如果有卖方应赔偿多少?

Buyer may ask for damages. If he buys replacement barrels on the local market and pays a reasonable price for them, he will be entitled (under Article 75) to that price. If Buyer does not obtain substitute barrels, he will be entitled (under Article 76) to the current price at the place of delivery; that is, $18 a barrel, or $450. If this had been a case involving force majeure, Buyer would not have been entitled to damages, but only a price reduction. Article 50 provides for a proportionate price reduction, so under that rule, the final price would be reduced to $14 a barrel, or $350.

Chapter 11 case 1 谭扣

Seller agreed to ship 10,000 tons of potatoes FOB Tacoma, Washington, to buyer in Japan. Buyer designated the SS Russet to take delivery at pier 7 in Tacoma. On the agreed-upon date for delivery, Seller delivered the potatoes to pier 7, but the ship was not at the pier. Because another ship using the pier was slow in loading, the Russet had to anchor at a moorng buoy in the harbor and Seller had to arrange for a lighter to transport the potatoes in containers to the ship. The lighter tied up alongside the Russet, and a cable from the ship's boom was attached to the first container. As the container began to cross the ship's rail, the cable snapped. The container then fell on the rail, teetered back and forth for a while, and finally crashed down the side of the ship, causing the lighter to capsize. All of the potatoes were dumped into the sea. Buyer now sues Seller for failure to make a delivery. Is Seller liable?

译文：卖方同意装运I万吨土豆给日本的买方，FOB Tacoma。买方指定RUSSET轮在Tacoma的第七号码头接货。卖方在规定的交货日期将货物运送到装运港口的第七号码头，但是买方指定的船舶没有到达指定码头。因为另外艘船舶占用了码头，卸货速度极慢。RUSSET轮只能在系泊浮桶外抛铺。卖方只能安排驳船将装运货物的集装箱转运到船上。驳船将集装箱运到船边，由船上的吊车吊装上船，在集装箱即将越过船舷时，吊缆断了，集装箱落在船舷上，摇晃了几下，最终从船边滑落，将驳船砸翻了。所有的土豆都沉人海底。买方起诉，要求卖方承担不能交货的责任。卖方应当承担贵任吗?

Answer: Yes, seller is liable under an FOB contract until the goods cross the ship’s rail.

Analysis: The term FOB provides that the transfer of risk of the goods shall be on the side of the ship at the port of shipment. If an accident occurs without passing the ship's rail at the port of shipment, it shall be the responsibility of the seller; if an accident occurs after passing the ship's rail at the port of shipment, it shall be the responsibility of the buyer. In this case, the container did not cross the ship's rail, so the seller should be held responsible according to FOB.

分析：卖方应当承担责任，因为货物未越过船舷。FOB这个贸易术语规定了货物的风险转移应该在装运港船舷处。若在未越过装运港船舷时发生意外事件，则为卖方的责任，若在越过装运港船舷后发生意外事件，则是买方承担责任。此案例中，集装箱并没有越过船舷，所以根据FOB，卖方应该承担责任。

Chapter 11 case 2 陈靖

Seller agreed to ship 10,000 tons of potatoes FOB Tacoma, Washington, to Buyer in Japan. Buyer designated the SS Russet to take delivery at pier 7 in Tacoma. On the agreed date for delivery, Seller delivered the potatoes to pier 7, but the ship was not at the pier. Because another ship using the pier was slow in loading, the Russet had to anchor at a mooring buoy in the harbor and Seller had to arrange for a lighter to transport the potatoes in containers to the ship. The lighter tied up alongside the Russet and a cable from the ship’s boom was attached to the first container. As the container began to cross the ship’s rail the cable snapped. The container then fell on the rail, teetered back and forth for a while, and finally crashed down the side of the ship and capsized the lighter. All of the potatoes were dumped into the sea. Buyer now sues Seller for failure to make delivery. Suppose the contract had been FAS Tacoma. Would Seller be liable?

卖方同意以华盛顿塔科马离岸价向日本买家发运1万吨土豆。买方指定SS Russet在塔科马的7号码头提货。在约定的交货日期，卖方将土豆运到7号码头，但船不在码头。由于使用码头的另一艘船装载速度较慢，赤褐色的船不得不停泊在港口的一个系泊浮标上，卖方不得不安排驳船把装在集装箱里的土豆运到船上。打火机绑在赤褐色的船舷上，一根缆绳从船的吊杆上系在第一个集装箱上。当集装箱开始越过船舷时，缆绳断了。然后集装箱掉在栏杆上，前后摇晃了一会儿，最后撞到船舷上，把打火机弄翻了。所有的土豆都被扔进了海里。买方现在起诉卖方未能交货。假设合同是FAS Tacoma。卖方有责任吗?

2.Suppose, in Question 1, the contract had been FAS Tacoma. Would Seller be liable?

译文：在题目1中，假如合同采用的是FAS Tacoma，那么卖方是否承担责任呢？

分析：No. The seller would not be liable.

According to Article 69 of CISG, “In case not within articles 67 and 68, the risk passes to the buyer when he takes over the goods or, if he does not do so in due time, from the time when the goods are placed at his disposal and he commits a breach of contract by failing to take delivery.”

In this case, the contract had been FAS Tacoma. The term “free alongside” or “free alongside ship” requires the seller to deliver goods to a named port alongside a vessel to be designated by the buyer and in a manner customary to the particular port. Alongside has traditionally meant that the goods must be within reach of a ship’s lifting tackle. And in this case, the seller’s lighters has taken the goods to the buyer’s ship, and the seller had accomplished his obligation. Instead, it is the buyer who should be liable from that point.

卖方无需承担责任。

根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第六十九条：在不属于第六十七条和第六十规定的情况下，从买方接受货物时起，或如果买方不在适当时间内这样做，则从货物交给他处置但他不收取货物从而违反合同时起，风险转移到买方承担。

在本案中，合同采用的国际贸易术语为FAS，即船边交货价格。当货物在指定的启动港被置于船边或驳船之中后，卖方即完成交货的义务。运输风险的分界在装运港买方船舶的吊钩之下。在本案中，卖方已用驳船将货物集装箱运到船边，完成了交付义务。货物在买方使用吊缆装运货物时发生意外，因此责任应由买方承担，而非卖方。

No. Seller is only required under an FAS contract to deliver the goods alongside the carrier and within reach of the carrier’s tackle. This Seller did. Buyer is responsible from that point on.

Chapter 11 case 3陈逸菲

Seller agreed to deliver 1,000 air conditioners to Buyer DES Port Moresby. The air conditioners were transported by ship to Port Moresby, where they were off-loaded to the cuntoms shed for inspection. The ship then sent a cable to Buyer stating that the air conditioners were in the customs shed and that the ship was proceeding on its way. Before Buyer could arrive to pay customs duties and collect the air conditioners, the customs shed burned down, destorying all the air conditioners. Buyer sues Seller for falling to make delivery. Is Seller liable?

卖方同意向买方指定的目的港-莫斯比尔提供1000台空调。空调以海运的方式运往莫斯比尔港，并在该港卸货接受海关检查。货轮向买家发送电报告知货物正在进行关检，接下来将继续运输。在买方缴纳关税验收货物前，海关失火，所有空调均被烧毁。买方控诉卖方没有履行运送职责，卖方应当负相应责任吗？

解析：卖方不需承担响应责任。在此案例中，卖方是否需要负责任，主要看买卖双方的责任转换发生在运输的哪一环节。根据2010年通则，FOB和FAS原则适用于海运和内陆水运，都是在装运港交货。在货物装运上船前所产生的风险,FOB条款下由卖方承担,FAS条款下卖方则不用承担。卖方已经将货物运送到目的港，货物被烧毁发生在交货后，应该由买家承担此次损失。

分析：Free On Board, also known as FOB, is one of the terms commonly used in the international trade. If the contract is concluded in this term, the Buyer shall dispatch a vessel to take delivery of the goods, and the Seller shall ship the goods to the Buyer's vessel within the stipulated port and time and then promptly notify the Buyer. When the goods pass over the ship's rail during shipment, the risk passes from the Seller to the Buyer. In this case, the vessel has delivered the goods to Port Moresby as required and the Seller has telegraphed to the Buyer in time. After the vessel passing the ship's rail at Port Moresby, the costs and risks of transporting the goods will pass to the Buyer from the Seller. In this case，the Seller's obligation has been fulfilled and the damage of air conditioners is not the Seller's responsibility.

FOB(Free On Board)，也称"船上交货价" ，是国际贸易中常用的术语之一。按此术语成交，由买方负责派船接运货物，卖方应在合同规定的装运港和规定的期限内，将货物装上买方指定的船只，并及时通知买方。货物在装船时越过船舷，风险即由卖方转移至买方。

在本案例中，船只已按要求将货物送到规定的莫尔兹比港且已及时发电报通知买方。以装运港船舷为界，越过船舷后，卖方所负责的把货物由产地运往装运港的费用和风险将转移给买方。本案例中卖方的义务已完成，空调被毁坏不属于其责任。

No. Under a DES contract, a seller fulfills his obligations by delivering the goods to the port of destination and paying off the ship. The buyer is responsible for clearing the goods through customs.

Chapter 11 case 4 贺子康

Seller in Sydney, Australia, agreed to ship goods on or before December 31 under a CIF Sydney contract to Buyer in Honolulu. The seller was unable to assemble the goods for delivery in time to reach the ship in Sydney and had to transship the goods by rail to Melbourne, where the ship was taking on goods on January 3. Seller did load the goods aboard railway cars in Sydney on December 29 and received a bill of lading from the ship, and together with an invoice and a marine insurance policy, tendered both bills of lading to Buyer. Buyer refused to accept the documents or to pay Seller. Seller sues to enforce the contract. Will Seller win?

澳大利亚悉尼的卖方同意在12月31日或之前根据CIF悉尼合同向檀香山的买方发运货物。 由于卖方未能及时将货物送达悉尼的装运船上，不得不通过铁路将货物转运到墨尔本，该装运船于1月3日在墨尔本接收货物。12月29日卖方确实在悉尼的铁路车上装货，从该船收到提单，并附上和海上保险单，向买方提交提单。买方拒绝接受文件或向卖方付款。 卖方起诉以执行合同。卖方会胜诉吗？

Analysis: The seller will not win the case. According to Incoterms 2010, the seller's delivery time under CIF is the time when the goods are loaded onto the ship. In this case, the seller delivered the goods in Melbourne on January 3, and the seller’s delivery time agreed in the contract is on or before December 31, the seller failed to deliver on time, and the buyer has the right to refuse to accept the documents or pay the seller.

分析：卖方不会胜诉，根据《2010国际贸易术语解释通则》对于CIF术语的解释，CIF下卖方交货时间即货物装上船的时间，在本案中，卖方于1月3日在墨尔本将货物装上船，而合同中约定的卖方交货时间是12月31日或之前，卖方未按期装船，买方有权拒绝接受文件或向卖方付款

分析：卖方不会赢。在CIF条件下，该悉尼的卖方应根据合同在12月31日或之前将货物送至悉尼的船并开始运送货物，但是买方1月3日才将货物运至墨尔本交货上船，CIF下的交货时间是装上船的时间，因此卖方并没有履行其交付货物、确保货物与合同相符的职责，买方有权拒绝接受货物。

It depends on whether or not the goods had been cleared from importation by customs. If they had, then Buyer would be liable for the loss. If not, then Seller would be liable.

Chapter 11 case 5闭思君

Seller in San Francisco agreed to ship goods to Buyer in London under a CIF San Francisco contract. After the goods were loaded board the ship, but before it departed from San Francisco, Seller tendered the documents required by the contract to Buyer and asked to be paid. Buyer refused, asserting that it had a right to inspect the goods upon their arrival in London, and that it did not have to pay until it did so and was satisfied that the goods were incompliance with the contract. Seller sues for immediate payment. Will Seller win?

旧金山的卖方同意向伦敦的买方装运货物，合同规定CIF San Francisco。在货物被装上船之后，在船舶离开装运港口之前，卖方根据合同的规定将单据提交买方，要求付款。买方拒绝付款，声称其有权在伦敦验货，只有货物没有问题的情况下，买方才能付款。卖方起诉，要求买方立即付款。卖方能够胜诉吗?

解析：The seller will win. A CIF contract requires the seller to arrange the for the carriage of goods by sea to a port of destination and to turn over to the buyer the documents necessary to obtain the goods form the carrier or to assert a claim against the insurer if the goods are lost or damaged. The three documents that the seller (as a minimum) has to provide----the invoice, the insurance policy, and the bill of lading----represent the three elements of the contract: cost, insurance, and the freight. The seller’s obligations are completed when the documents are tendered to the buyer. At that time, the buyer is obliged to pay the agreed-upon price. In this case, the seller has already tendered the documents required by the contract, so the buyer has to make immediate payment.

卖方能够胜诉。CIF合同要求卖方将货物海上运输至目的港并向买方移交从运输方获得货物或货物有丢失或损害时提出索赔所需的文件。卖方（至少）必须提供的三个文件----、保险单和提单----代表了合同的三个要素：成本、保险和运费。当单据提交给买方时，卖方的义务完成。届时，买方有义务支付双方议定的价格。在本案中，卖方已按合同要求移交了文件，买方应向卖方付款，卖方胜诉。

No. A CIF contract is strictly a carriage by sea contract. Failure to deliver the goods to a ship by the agreed “shipment” date is a breach of the contract. This was the holding in Mowbray, Robinson & Co. v. Rosser, 91 L.J Rep. 524 (King’s Bench 1922).

Chapter 11 case 6黎姿

Seller in Bombay sells 5000 bales of cotton to Buyer, C&F (Incoterms 2010) Liverpool. Seller transports the cotton to the Bombay harbor and to the ship designated by Buyer, the SS Allthumbs. Due to an error in counting, only 4987 bales were loaded. The ship’s bill of lading,however,shows a quantity of 5000 bales. Seller then signs over the bill of lading to Buyer in exchange for payment in full for the cotton. When the allthumbs arrives in Liverpool,the quantity error is discovered, and Buyer sues the ship for the lost value of the missing bales. Is the ship liable? Would it matter if Seller admitted that the error was not the ship's fault,but that of Seller?

孟买的卖方向利物浦的买方出售5000包棉花，合同规定C&F Liverpool（Incoterms 2010）。卖方将货物运到港口，交给了船方。由于计数错误，只有4987包棉花被装运上船。然而提单注明的货物是5000包。卖方转让了提单，要求买方支付全部货款。在船舶到达利物浦之后，货物数量不足的情况被发现了。买方起诉船方，要求其承担少货的损失。船方有责任吗？如果卖方承认过错不在船方而在自己，船方应承担责任吗？

解析：

在买方利物浦已购买保险的情况下，船方有责任承担少货的损失。

根据C&F（Incoterms 2010），卖方只负责承担货物运至指定目的港所需的成本和运输费用，不包括保险费，保险费由买方承担；装运港货物越过船舷，卖方即完成交货，交货后货物灭失或损坏的风险，以及由于各种事件造成的任何额外费用，即由卖方转移到买方。

在本案中，卖方将货物运送至港口，交给船方，并转让提单给买方，此时应已完成了交货，风险转移到买方；船方如在装运之前收到的是5000包棉花，但由于船方计数错误导致货物数量不足，此时船方有责任承担少货损失，在买方已购买保险的情况下，可向船方索赔；

如由于卖方计数错误，并未提供足5000包棉花给船方，根据C&F（Incoterms 2010），卖方须负责棉花装运之前货物的检查费用，包括数量ˎ质量ˎ重量等，此时卖方应承担责任，船方不应承担责任。

In the case that the buyer Liverpool has purchased insurance, the ship is responsible for the loss of the goods.

According to C&F (Incoterms 2010), the seller is only responsible for the cost and transportation costs required for the shipment of the goods to the designated port of destination, excluding insurance premiums, the insurance premium is borne by the buyer; the goods at the port of shipment cross the ship's rail and the seller completes the delivery . The risk of loss or damage to the goods, as well as any additional costs due to various events, is transferred from the seller to the buyer.

In this case, the seller transported the goods to the port, handed them over to the ship, and transferred the bill of lading to the buyer. At this point, the delivery should have been completed and the risk transferred to the buyer; if the ship received 5,000 bales of cotton before shipment, However, due to the incorrect counting of the ship, the ship is responsible for the loss of the goods. In the case that the buyer has purchased the insurance, the claim can be made to the ship;

If the seller does not provide enough 5,000 packs of cotton to the ship due to wrong counting by the seller, according to C&F (Incoterms 2010), the seller shall be responsible for the inspection cost of the goods before the shipment of the cotton, including quantity, quality, weight, etc., at this time the seller shall be liable. The ship should not be held responsible.

Yes. A buyer has a duty to pay upon the presentation of documents by the seller. See Incoterms CIF Article B.1. See also Biddell Bros. v. E. Clemens Horst Co., [1911] K.B. 214 (King’s Bench 1911), where these exact facts were at issue.

Chapter11 Case7 李莹莹

Effect of the bill of lading.

Seller in Bombay sells 5,000 bales of cotton to Buyer, C & F (Incoterms 1990) Liverpool. Seller transports the cotton to the Bombay harbor and to the ship designed to Buyer, the SS Allthumbs. Due to an error in counting, only 4,987 bales were loaded. The ship’s bill of lading, however, shows a quantity of 5,000 bales. Seller then signs over the bill of lading to Buyer in exchange for payment in full for the cotton. When the Allthumbs arrives in Liverpool, the quantity error is discovered, and Buyer sues the ship for lost value of missing bales. Is the ship liable? Would it matter if Seller admitted that error was not the ship’s fault, but that of Seller?

提单的效力。

孟买的卖方向买方利物浦成本加运费价(1990年国际贸易术语解释通则)出售5000包棉花。卖方把棉花运到孟买港，然后运到专为买方设计的SS Allthumbs号轮船上。由于计数错误，只装了4987包。然而，该船的提单显示有5000包货物。然后卖方在提单上签字给买方，以换取棉花的全部货款。当Allthumbs到达利物浦时，发现数量错误，买方就货物丢失向船方索赔。

船舶有责任吗?如果卖方承认错误不是船的错，而是卖方的错，这可以吗?

解析：船舶有责任。就提单来说，根据《统一提单的若干法律法规的国际公约》，提单是由海洋承运人向托运人签发的，证明承运人就货物运输与托运人已经达成了合同的凭据。除此之外，它还是货物已经装船的收据以及货物的所有权文书。如果船舶作为承运人检查了棉花的数量再让托运人卖方签字，就不会发生货物缺失的现象。

如果卖方承认是自己的错，这是可以的。因为其实本身就是卖方把货物计数计错导致的货物缺失，卖方应该承担责任，向买方补给剩下的13包棉花，或者是返还13包棉花的钱款给买方。

The ship is responsible. According to the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Bills of Lading, a bill of lading is an instrument issued by the ocean carrier to a shipper with whom the carrier has entered into a contract for the carriage of goods. In addition, it is a receipt for the shipment of the goods and a document of ownership of the goods. If the ship (as a carrier) inspects the quantity of cotton before the Seller signs the bill of lading, there will be no loss of goods.

If the Seller admits that it is his fault, this is ok. Because it is actually the Seller's lack of goods caused by the wrong counting of goods, the Seller should bear the responsibility to replenish the Buyer with the remaining 13 bales of cotton, or return the money of 13 bales of cotton to the Buyer.

The ship is liable. A bill of lading is conclusive evidence as to the description contained on its face once it has been negotiated to an innocent third party. Even if the recipient of the bill of lading admits to causing the mistake, the information on the bill of lading cannot be challenged.

Chapter11 Case8 蓝婷婷

Maritime Liens 海上留置权

Mr.Ess, the owner of the SS Skimp and an American citizen, borrows money from MultiBank in London to outfit his ship, giving the bank a maritime lien. Mr. Ess sells the Skimp to Mr. Tee, a Canadian. Mr, Tee is unaware of the lien and unaware that Mr. Ess has defaulted on the loan. When the ship pulls into a British port, the bank arranges for it to be arrested and sold to pay off the balance due on the loan. Can the bank do this?

SS Skimp的船主、美国公民埃斯向伦敦Multibank借款，装备自己的船，给了银行海上留置权。Ess先生向加拿大的Tee先生出售了SS Skimp。Tee不知道留置权，并且没有意识到Ess先生已经拖欠贷款。当船舶驶入英国港口时，银行安排将其扣留并出售，以偿还贷款到期的余额。银行可以这样做吗？

Analysis：The bank can do this. A maritime lien is independent of the ship's possession and attaches to the vessel whether it is at open waters or in a port. If a vessel is sold, the lien "goes with the ship", even if the new owner is unaware of its existence.

Under both The Hague Rules and The Hague-Visby Rules, a ship is exempt from losses due to acts of war. However, it will remain liable if it does not take reasonable precautions to avoid danger. Here, the ship did not avoid the danger. It would be liable.

Chapter12 Case1王丽馨

Identify the following instruments:

a. A written promise by a bank to repay money received from a depositor.

银行书面允诺偿还从存款人处收到的款项。

Key: A certificate of deposit. 存款单。

Analysis：A certificate of deposit (CD) is a savings certificate with a fixed maturity date and specified fixed interest rate that can be issued in any denomination aside from minimum investment requirements.

b. A written promise to pay another a certain sum of money.

书面允诺另付一定金额。

Key: A promissory note. 期票。

Analysis：A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money, to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.

c. An instrument drawn by one person ordering another to pay a third at a definite future time.

此文书由一人指定另一个人在将来指定的某个时间支付三分之一款项。

Key: A time bill. 定期汇票。

Analysis：A financial document, used especially in international trade, that orders a person or organization to pay a particular amount at a particular time for goods or services that they have bought.

d. An instrument drawn by one person ordering another to pay a third at presentment or at a stated time after presentment.

此文书由一人提示另一个人在当下或在提示后的一个明确时间支付三分之一款项。

Key: A sight bill. 即期汇票。

Analysis：At sight is a payment due on demand. An at sight payment will require the party receiving the good or service to pay a certain sum immediately upon being presented with the bill of exchange.

e. An instrument drawn by person A ordering person B to pay person A.

此文书由A指定B为其支付。

Key: A trade acceptance. 商业承兑汇票。

Analysis：A bill of exchange or draft drawn upon the purchaser by the seller and accepted by the purchaser for payment at a specified time

f. An instrument drawn by one person ordering a bank to pay a third person on demand.

由一人指定银行为其向第三方按要求付款。

Key: A check. 支票。

Analysis：A written order signed by its maker directing a bank to pay a specified sum to a named person or to that person s order on demand.

g. A written promise to pay another a certain sum of money that is secured by personal property.

书面允诺另付一定金额款项，并由私人财产保障。

Key: A collateral note. 附带期票

Analysis：A note is usually a short term business loan that may be secured or unsecured by collateral.

h. A written promise to pay another a certain sum of money that is secured by real property.

书面允诺另付一定金额款项，并由不动产保障。

Key: A mortgage note. 抵押票据

Analysis：In the United States, a mortgage note (also known as a real estate lien note) is a promissory note associated with a specified mortgage loan; it is a written promise to repay a specified sum of money plus interest at a specified rate and length of time to fulfill the promise.

i. A written promise to pay another a certain sum of money that is due in installments.

书面允诺另付一定金额款项，并采取分期付款的形式完成支付。

Key: An installment note. 分期付款票据

Analysis：An installment note is a form of promissory note calling for payment of both principal and interest in specified amounts, or specified minimum amounts, at specific time intervals. This periodic reduction of principal amortizes the loan.

j. An instrument that serves as a carrier's receipt for goods, as evidence of a contract of carriage, and as a document of title.

此文书是承运人收到货物收据，是运输合同的证明，也是物权凭证。

Key: A bill of lading. 提单

Analysis：The bill of lading (BOL) works as a receipt of freight services, a contract between a freight carrier and shipper and a document of title. The bill of lading is a legally binding document providing the driver and the carrier all the details needed to process the freight shipment and invoice it correctly.

Chapter12 Case2谢婧

Negotiability Issues

The following instrument was written on a luncheonette napkin:”I , the undersigned, do acknowledge that I owe Vladimir Lenin ten thousand rubles, with interest, payable at Moscow out of the proceeds from the sale next month of my dacha in St. Petersburg. Payment is due on or before six months from this date. Signed at Berlin. Otto von Bismarck.” Is this instrument negotiable or nonnegotiable?

下面的票据写在一张餐巾纸上：“我，署名人，承认我欠弗拉基米尔·列宁一万卢布，加上利息，用下个月在圣彼得堡出售的别墅所得的收益来支付。自本日起6个月或之前付款。在柏林签字。奥托·冯·俾斯麦。”这张票据是可转让的还是不可转让的？

Analysis：Bills of exchange and promissory notes may be either negotiable or nonnegotiable. To be negotiable, a bill or note must be in the proper form and contain a promise by the maker or drawer to make payment. To meet the promissory requirements, a bill or note must do the following:

1.State an unconditional promise or order to pay

2.State a definite sum of money or a monetary unite of account

3.Be payable on demand or at a definite time

4.Be signed by the maker or drawer

In this case, the drawer, in the form of a note written on a napkin, promised to pay ten thousand rubles with interest, paid with proceeds from the sale of the villa, Specified payment period, within six months, also signed by the drawer, in line with the promissory note requirements for negotiable instruments. So this instrument is negotiable.

汇票和本票可以是可转让的，也可以是不可转让的。票据必须具有适当的形式，并含有出票人作出的付款承诺，方可转让。为满足本票的要求，汇票或本票必须具备下列条件:

1.陈述无条件的承诺或付款命令。

2.说明一定数额的钱或货币上的统一帐户

3.按需付款或在一定时间付款。

4.由制造商或出票人签署

案例中，出票人以在餐巾纸上写票据的形式，承诺将支付一万卢布欠款和利息，且以出售的别墅收益支付，写明了一定的支付期限，六个月以内, 也由出票人签署了票据，符合可以转让票据的本票要求。所以该票据可以转让。

Nonnegotiable. It is not dated (and needs to be). It contains a collateral promise that makes the obligation contingent (the sale of the house). It is payable only out of a limited source of funds (thus not making the drawer unconditionally liable). It is not named (as a promissory note) as required by the ULB.

Chapter12 Case3刘丽媛

Muhammad Mussadegh purchased a store in Abadan from Reza Khan for 100,000 pounds sterling. 1o pay for the store, Mussadeghsigned a promissory note that contained the following two causes:(a)"On or before January 1, 2012, I promise to pay Reza Khan or bearer 100,000 pounds sterling in cash or deliver title to my housein Tehran, at the holder's option"and(b)"The maker of this promissory note hereby reserves the right to extend the time of paymentfor six months: and the holder reserves the right to extend the timeof payment indefinitely. "What are the effects of these clauses onthe negotiability of the note?

穆罕默德从卡汉手中以10万英镑的价格购买了一个商店,为了履行支付义务,穆罕默德签发了一张本票,上面包括两个条款:第一,在2012年1月1日当日或之前, 本人承诺支付10万英镑现金或将我在德黑兰拥有的房产所有权转让给持票人或卡汉, 由其选择。第二, 兹注明,本票之出票人保留将付款日期延长至6个月的权利,持票人保留将付款期无限延长的权利。这些条款对于本票的可转让性有什么影响呢?

解析：

可转让的票据需具备以下条件：具备正确的形式且包含出票人支付的允诺。同时，为了符合允诺性要求，票据本票或汇票必须：包含无条件支付的允诺，标明金额和币种，见票即付或在规定的时间付款，最终由出票人签字。

在本案例中:

第一则条款规定了支付的时间、金额、币种、并将位于德黑兰的房产作为抵押来保证付款。因此，无论转让该本票与否，第一条作为穆罕穆德支付的允诺，不对该本票的可转让性造成任何影响。

第二则条款使得该本票的支付日期变得模糊，不符合可转让票据需要明确规定付款时间的要求。因此，第二则条款使该本票变为不可转让本票。

The first clause does not affect negotiability. The reference to the house in Teheran amounts to a guarantee, or collateral, to ensure that the note will be paid. The second clause makes the note non-negotiable, because all notes must ultimately be payable at a certain time.

Chapter12 Case4 刘梦竺

Liability of the Drawer Where Payee is Fictitious

Ben Arnold has been an employee of Tom Jefferson for several years. During that time, Jefferson has relied on Arnold to prepare payroll checks to pay suppliers, etc. Unknown to Jefferson, Arnold is a compulsive gambler who owes large sums of money to various underworld figures. Arnold, who has been threatened with death if he fails to pay on his debts, prepares a check payable to a nonexistent supplier. Jefferson innocently signs the check. Arnold then endorses the check with "Pay to Ben Arnold" and the supplier’s name. Later, Arnold takes the check to his bank, endorses it in the bank, deposits it in his personal checking account, and then, later still, withdraws the money and flees the country. Meanwhile, Arnold has abandoned his job and defrauded him of a large sum of money; he demands that Arnold's bank credit his account at his bank. Must Arnold's bank do so? Under the BEA or UCC? Under the ULB.

开票人对虚构的受款人的责任

本·阿诺德为杰弗逊工作了多年。在此期间，杰弗逊都靠阿诺德去准备一些工资支票，向供应商付款的支票等。杰弗逊不知道的是阿诺德是一个赌棍，还欠了大笔的赌债。在死亡的威胁下，阿诺德以一个根本不存在的供应商为收款人，开具了一张支票。杰弗逊在不知情的状况下签了字。然后阿诺德以他本人和那个根本不存在的供应商为背书人在支票上做了背书。随后，阿诺德兑付了支票，将钱存在自己的账户上，过了一段时间之后，他携款逃到了外国。此后，付款行将支票提交到杰弗逊的开户行要求付款，杰弗逊的开户行兑付了支票。当杰弗逊发现阿诺德离职了并且诈骗了他的一大笔钱之后，他要求阿诺德的开户行将款项返还自己的开户行。阿诺德的开户行必须返还吗？请根据《汇票法》《美国统一法典》、《统一汇票和本票法公约》进行分析。

个人观点：

阿诺德的开户行不需要返还杰弗逊的款项。

理由：

1. 根据ULB（《统一汇票和本票法公约》）第7条规定，伪造背书具有完全的法律效力，因这一背书而持有票据的人及其后手有权获得付款。也就是说，在本案中，虽然受款人是编造的，但是其背书还是有效的，因为有杰弗逊的签名。

2. BEA（《汇票法》）中有一项"where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to bearer"也证明了该支票的有效性。

3.编造的受款人规则规定，票据是向一个编造的受款人签发的，声称自己是那个编造的受款人的人所为的背书，是有效的。

根据以上法典的规定我们可以得出在本案中，责任主要还是在于杰弗逊本人，签署了支票，即使受款人是虚假的，但是支票仍然具有法律效力，所以阿诺德的开户行没有理由接受杰弗逊的还款请求。

.This is the fictitious payee situation. Under the BEA, the UCC, and the ULB, the drawer (Jefferson) is liable for the loss.

Chapter12 Case5杨姝馨

Rights of the Holder

Ms. V, a wealthy art collector in Country W, is interested in buying a rate painting from Mr. Y in Country Z. Both parties agree that the price is to be determined by an independent appraiser. V informs Y that she will send her agent, X ，with a check to collect the painting. V draws a check payable to Y but leaves the amount blank. She gives the check to X and instructs him to deliver it to Y. Without authority, X fill in the amount for $1 million and presents it to Y, who has, in the meantime, received the appraisal. The appraised price is $750,000. X tells Y that Ms. V had made the check out for $1 million to ensure that it will exceed the appraisal price, and the difference in cash. Y gives X the painting and $250,000 in cash. When V discovers what has happened, she stops payment on her check and offers to pay Y $750,000 for the painting. Y insists that V must pay the check’s full-face value of $1 million. Is Y correct?

V女士是W国的一位富有的收藏家，有意购买Z国的Y先生手中的一幅画作。双方统一由评估师估定价格。V女士通知Y先生她将派自己的代理人X取走画件。V签发了一张支付给Y的支票，但金额未填写。将支票交给了X，指示X将支票交付Y先生。在未经授权的情况下，X将金额填写为100万元，将支票交付给了Y先生。此时，Y收到了评估师的估价，估定的价格是75万元。X告诉Y先生，V女士将金额填写为100万元，是为了能够超出评估价格。现在V女士要求自己带走画作和多支付的款项。Y先生将画以及25万元现金交给了X。X将画交给了V女士，但卷走了25万元，销声匿迹了。当V女士知道后，止付了支票，请求按75万元付款。Y先生拒绝了，坚持V女士必须付100万元。Y先生的主张正确嘛？

Answer:

Correct. According to the ULB, the most extensive limitations imposed on the excuses of makers and drawers are contained. And there are three excuses available to the party: one is that the possessor is not a holder because he did not acquire title through an uninterrupted series of endorsements; the second that the holder acquired the instrument in bad faith; and the third one is that the holder acquired the instrument through gross negligence. In this case, X is in bad faith, so the Y is correct.

解析：

正确，根据ULB(《统一汇票和本票法公约》)，出票人（即卖方）有三种免责理由：第一，持票人不是通过连续背书获得的票据，因而不是票据持有人；第二，票据持有人是恶意取得的票据；第三，持有人取得票据存在重大过失。在本案中，X作为票据持有人，具有恶意取得的因素，因此Y先生有免责理由。

Because X had already filled in the amount payable, Y took the instrument without any knowledge that X had altered it. Y would be a holder under the ULB, and a holder in due course under the BEA and UCC. In each case, Y would be entitled to collect the entire $1 million.

Chapter12 Case6 向杨

Doug Drawer makes out a check for $9 to phil payee. Phil cleverly alters the number 9 to 90 and the written nine to ninety and then cashes the check at a local convenience store. Must Doug (or Doug`s bank) pay $ 90 to the store? Under the BEA or UCC? Under the ULB?

道格·德拉尔开了一张9美元的支票给收款人菲尔。菲尔巧妙地把数字9改成90，然后在当地一家便利店把支票兑现。根据《汇票法》，《统一商法典》和《统一汇票和本票法公约》，道格(或道格的银行)必须向商店支付90美元吗?

Answer：Under the BEA or UCC, because the holder making presentment warrants that the check was not altered, so that they don`t need to pay $ 90 to the store.Under the ULB, there are no warranties, and the holder, who received the check with a proper signature, is entitled to collect on it. So that they need to pay $90 to the store

Chapter12 Case7 向东群

Fraud in the Execution

John Johnson, who works for a well-known parcel delivery service, delivered a large package to Pete Peterson and had Pete sign what Pete believed was an acknowledgment of delivery. The package contained component stereo parts that Pete had ordered from a foreign supplier, and Pete was delighted to receive them. Pete did not give the matter a second thought until several months later, when Donna Doe demanded payment of $5,000. Pete discovered that he had signed a three-months negotiable promissory note, rather than the acknowledgment of a delivery, and that Donna had innocently purchased the note from John. Must Pete pay the note? the BEA or UCC? Under the ULB?

执行中的欺诈

约翰·约翰逊在一家著名的包裹快递服务公司工作，他给皮特·皮特森发送了一个大包裹，皮特认为这是一份收货单，因此在上面签了名，包裹里面装的是他从外国供应商订购的组件立体声零部件。皮特没有想太多直到几个月之后，唐娜·多伊要求支付此包裹5,000美元。皮特才发现，他签的是一张三个月的可转让本票，而不是收货单，这张本票是唐娜最近从约翰那里买下来的。

皮特必须付款吗？根据BEA《汇票法》 《统一商法典》和UCC《统一汇票和本票法公约》ULB加以分析。

解析：

根据BEA和UCC皮特是不需要付款的。

根据BEA Holder in due course. 第二十九条　正当持票人内容：(2)In particular the title of a person who negotiates a bill is defective within the meaning of this Act when he obtained the bill, or the acceptance thereof, by fraud, duress, or force and fear, or other unlawful means, or an illegal consideration, or when he negotiates it in breach of faith, or under such circumstances as amount to a fraud.

（２）特别是，如某人以欺诈、胁迫、暴力和恐吓，或其他非法手段，或以非法对价取得汇票或汇票之承兑，或违反诚信，或在等同欺诈之情况下流通转让汇票，则按照本法含义，该汇票转让人之所有权存有缺陷。John是以欺诈手段获得汇票承诺的，所以皮特不需要付款。

而根据ULB 皮特需要付款。

第二十五条

承兑应写於汇票上，以“已承兑”或其他同义词语表明，并由付款人签名；仅有付款人於票面签名亦构成承兑。并且皮特没有在规定期限内发出承兑拒绝求，所以皮特需要付款。

No. Under the BEA or UCC, because fraud in the execution is a defense that can be raised against holders as well as holders in due course and protected holders. Yes, under the ULB, because all of the signatures are regular, and Donna did not acquire the instrument in bad faith.

Chapter 12 Case8 杨娜

Cee Company in Canada agreed to sell 10,000 gallons of maple syrup to Dee Company in Copenhagen. Dee Company arranged for a letter of credit with its bank in Copenhagen. The credit required payment on the presentation of a bill of lading and an inspection certificate issued by a quality control company, Vigilance, Inc., of Toronto. Cee Company produced both the bill and the inspection certificate. The Copenhagen bank refused to pay because the inspection certificate stated that "based on a sample taken from 5 gallons, the maple syrup is not of the kind ordered." The bank argued that the certificate, on its face, did not certify the regularity of the entire order. Was the bank correct in refusing payment ?

加拿大的Cee公司同意向哥本哈根的Dee公司出售10,000加仑的枫糖浆。 Dee公司向哥本哈根的银行开出了信用证。信用证要求提供提单和由多伦多Vigilance公司的质量控制公司签发的检验证书。 Cee公司出具了账单和检验证书。哥本哈根银行拒绝付款，因为检验证书表明，“5加仑中提取的样品证明枫糖浆不是Dee公司订购的那种。” 该银行称，从表面上看，该证书并不能证明整个订单的规律性。问：该银行拒绝付款的做法是否正确？

Analysis：The bank was correct.

Because The main issue is whether the banks are liable to the applicant when the commercial documents or bills of exchange which appear to be consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit are not genuine. Article 13 of UCP 500 requires that banks must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. The banks' responsibility is Limited to the ostensible conformity of the documents. However, it must be emphasised that the doctrine of strict compliance requires a bank to ensure only that the documents appear to be consistent with the terms of the credit (art 14 of UCP 500), and thus give rise neither to a duty to ascertain the conformity of the goods, nor an obligation to investigate an alleged fraud. Second, the complexity of international trade means that the banks as agents of the buyer or seller are not able to understand and appreciate all technical terms (some of which are interchangeable) or the technical differences between goods of similar functions or nature.

No. In Banco Español de Credito v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 385 F2d 230 (5th Cir., 1967), the court concluded that such a certificate conformed to the requirements of the letter of credit, and that the bank had no duty, or right, to look into the underlying transaction.

Chapter12 case9 舒莤

Rousseau et Fils has signed a contract to buy 10,000 “new coffee percolators in the manufacturer’s original packaging, with standard manufacturer’s warranty,” from Schwartz, GmBH. Schwartz agrees to ship the percolators CIF, and Rousseau agrees to make payment by means of an irrevocable letter of credit. Rousseau contacts Thermidor Bank, which issues a letter of credit promising to honor a promissory note payable to Schwartz when it is accompanied by an invoice and a clean, on board bill of lading for “10,000 new coffee percolators in the manufacturer’s original packaging, with standard manufacturer’s warranty.” Rousseau learns from Weiss, a competitor of Schwartz, that even though Schwartz had obtained actual bills identifying the goods as “10,000 new coffee percolators in the manufacturer’s original packaging, with standard manufacturer’s warranty,” the percolators were actually used and inoperable. Is there anything that Rousseau can do?

R与S签署了一份合同，将购买10,000台提供标准质量保证的原装新咖啡过滤机。S同意按CIF交货，R同意以不可撤销信用证方式付款。R与T银行联系。由T银行开具信用证，同意承付以S为付款人的本票, S应当提交关于“10,000台提供标准质量保证的原装新咖啡过滤机”的以及清洁提单。R从S的竞争对手W那里了解到，虽然S提交的单据表明货物是10,000台提供标准质量保证的原装新咖啡过滤机”，但这批货物实际上是二手的，被使用过的机器。R应当采取哪些措施？

解析: 根据UCP600规定:

⑴银行对任何单据的形式，充分性，准确性，内容真实性，虚假性或法律效力，或对单据中规定或添加的一般或特殊条件，概不负责。

⑵不可撤销的安排，无论其名称和描述如何，该项安排构成开证行对相符交单予以承付的确定承诺。

本案中，由于信用证与基础交易想分离，且R同意以不可撤销信用证方式付款，因此无论基础交易存在何种欺诈，开证行都必须付款。但是如果有证据证明卖方违反了关于货物担保的义务，构成了故意欺诈，银行就不能认为单据与信用证符合。因此R应收集S出售二手咖啡过滤器的证据然后在T银行付款前起诉S。

其次，R可以要求卖方S开立备用信用证以避免交付的货物不符合约定造成的损失。

No. A bank is obliged to pay on an irrevocable letter of credit even if there is a fraud in the underlying transaction. Moreover, there was only a suggestion of fraud in this case, no positive proof.

Chapter12 Case10 曹秋露

Duty of a Bank Under a Letter of Credit（Q10）

●争议：

如果R公司掌握了有关诈骗的足够证据，处理方法会不同吗？

●解释：

有可能。假定银行知道卖方参与了针对买方的欺诈活动，由银行的义务可知，如果基础交易是欺诈性的，信用证是可撤销的，银行可以拒绝付款；如果信用证是不可撤销的，银行不能拒绝付款。根据UCP规定，无论基础交易存在何种欺诈，开证行都必须付款。

然而，根据案例12-7，在卖方装运了相当于垃圾的货物的严重情况下，认为，尽管信用证和基础交易之间相分离，但是这一规则适用的前提是卖方违反了关于货物担保的义务，而卖方的行为构成了故意欺诈，如果开证行已经知道合法单据下隐藏的非法交易，银行就不能认为单据与信用证相符。裁定，可以进行干预，命令开证行不支付汇票。

因而如果R公司掌握了有关诈骗的足够证据，处理方法可能会不同。

Possibly. Normally， if the documents are prepared and delivered in correct form, the letter of credit must be honored and paid by all. However in extremely rare case such as this one-where the banks knows before it has accepted or paid the draft that the seller has engaged in deliberate fraud-the bank might be enjoyed from honoring the letter of credit. In Case 12-7, Sztejn v. J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corp., the court held that in a grievous circumstance where the seller has shipped what amounted to junk that a court could intervene issuing bank not to pay the bill of exchange.

Chapter12 Case11邱威夷

Q11：如果S公司的银行已经保兑了信用证，在R公司得知货物与合同不符的情况之前支付了本票，处理方式有什么不同吗？

解析：没有什么不同。因为不管双方的交易中是否存在欺骗行为，银行都有责任去支付已开具的信用证。并且问题11中S公司的银行已经保兑了信用证，支付了本票，那么开具信用证的T银行就更应该按照规定支付信用证。

分析:

The issuing bank should pay the confirming bank.

A confirming bank refers to a bank that accepts the entrustment request of the issuing bank and pays the payment of the letter of credit issued by the issuing bank in the name of the bank. After confirming the credit on the letter of credit, the confirming bank is solely responsible for the letter of credit and assumes the responsibility of payment or negotiation. Once the draft or the document has been paid or negotiated by the confirming bank, the confirming bank has no right to pursue the ticket to the exporter even if the issuing bank fails or refuses to pay. According to Article 46 of the “Measures for Settlement of Domestic Letters of Credit” (revised in 2016), if the issuing documents of the issuing bank or the confirming bank are found to be inconsistent and decide to refuse to pay, they shall be closed once within 5 business days from the day after receipt of the documents. All discrepancies are notified to the paying bank or beneficiary electronically or by other shortcuts. If the issuing bank or the confirming bank fails to notify the discrepancies as required, it has no right to claim that the bill is not in conformity.

开证行应该向保兑行付款。

保兑行是指接受开证行的委托要求，对开证行开出的信用证的付款责任以本银行的名义实行保付的银行。保兑行在信用证上加具保兑后，即对信用证负责，承担必须付款或议付的责任。汇票或单据一经保兑行付款或议付，即使开证行倒闭或无理拒付，保兑行也无权向出口商追索票款。根据《国内信用证结算办法》（2016修订）第四十六条 开证行或保兑行审核单据发现不符并决定拒付的，应在收到单据的次日起5个营业日内一次性将全部不符点以电子方式或其他快捷方式通知交单行或受益人。如开证行或保兑行未能按规定通知不符点，则无权宣称交单不符。

No. The issuing bank would be under an even greater obligation to pay the confirming bank.