Welcome to Law-Forums.org!   

Advertisments:




Sponsor Links:

Discount Legal Forms
Discounted Legal Texts


Contract Law

The law of the sea.

Contract Law

Postby Eanruig » Wed Nov 02, 2016 5:36 am

Hi Davide,

I noticed on your RFQ you have the following;

4.   Contract formation laws England and foreign Governance of such apply.

7.   All disputes settled amicably or as per LCIA arbitration in seller’s country.

Is this the law jurisdiction that applies to all areas of ICC?

Thank you
Eanruig
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:05 am

Contract Law

Postby Aundray » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:57 pm

Hi Davide,

I noticed on your RFQ you have the following;

4.   Contract formation laws England and foreign Governance of such apply.

7.   All disputes settled amicably or as per LCIA arbitration in seller’s country.

Is this the law jurisdiction that applies to all areas of ICC?

Thank you
Aundray
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:41 am

Contract Law

Postby juanito » Sun Nov 06, 2016 5:39 pm

Dear Renee

Too long - Good subject matter- Far too complex for most. I'll give a general pointing insight.

The RFQ is an in house document invented by FTN many years back-it seams the term has gone mainstream in the last 4/5 years by accident and by early  (mis) use by ftn traders. It could be used as a form of general inquiry- but its design was for intermediaries in house presentation of an end buyers details  their Principal for consideration of an end buyers inquiry.It's not a proper form to use externally-It's training application.

No single law can apply total Jurisdiction. Such is for the country in question to apply internally.

UNCITRAL are a set of mercantile  laws applied  for and designed for  extraterritorial  use- Note the terms 'extraterritorial use'-But intermediaries can fully s use some of it limited  aspects- This is a huge problem even today- and the law books are full of litigation applying when an supplier tries to apply the laws of his country to an international trade deal. The ICC based in Paris, France, even wrote of such serious issues a few years back.

Contract formation laws England and foreign Governance of such apply. This means the English law has wide scope to he hear  upon matters  not just of its own jurisdiction but hear case of those in other Jurisdiction.I want the 6 elements of contract formation to be used by intermediaries

he said 6 elements  of contract under English law

(a) Intention of parties  (b) An offer was previously made(c) Valuable consideration is defined to mean amongst other things - price.(d) Legal capacity to enter into such(e) Genuine  consent  is apparent by the parties to enter into a legally binding situation.(f) Legality of objects of the basic agreement in place. I.e: Conditions applied on  such a contract are legally effective. Not in contrary to common law  or statue.

And Guess? Of  all contract we have seen, no matter the country  has most if not all of those element present.Tie that in with banking and delivery rules- the intermediary has one formidable uniform applications  for use world wide. But there is more.

Hence I am stating that UCP 600 Incoterms  and English contract formation laws MUST be used with the intermediary doctrine create uniformity of process and of Agency, and that if not used then the international trade virtues of the very same trading structure must still prevail.Must be used in the adopted and adapted manner we've presented.

Laws or structure both apply or either- hence the doctrine is written accordingly, and our smice.net board has many suppliers and buyers  from all around the world offering /wanting goods on such a basis-

The entity who is the seller applies the laws he is using to support his own dealings . The Suppliers use his to the buyer come Seller . The end Buyer in buying 'Internationally', in that the seller is advising to the end buyer  what laws will play a big part of the contract process. Being that ostensibly up to 80 percent plus of the world uses in part of fully attributes of English laws in their own processes, then the intermediary also choosing to use such has support.

When combined with countries  India , China via Hong Hong and USA- you are now dealing with the biggest exporters in the world. When you are talking about maritime laws and insurance , English attributes of such matters. Lloyds of London are not just insurers, they innovated the whole process of covering loss at sea.Disobey the rule of insurance,and of sea carriage  and no payment will be made for such loss, no matter from which country the insurer is making claim form. When you are talking about ICC you are talking about delivery rules "incoterms " and banking rules pertaining to DLC via UCP 600 - Nothing to do with Laws and ICC.They apply rules. The ICC Paris, France owns and governs such rules. If a ship uses the terms likes  CIF or FOB  that's a 100% universal application as the ICC terms is a copyright and trade marked application. One can't say 'Can I have a quote for CIF Shanghai China " to mean something else- but apply ICC rules of delivery via Latest Incoterms.

The deliver application is tied into the DLC rules of issuance and collection- again the majority of world banks are able to accept the virtues of such a DLC.

Now apply those two edicts  , take away on a contract any mention of English laws,and replace such with the REQUIRE  6 elements,  nothing changes in the contract. The contract type will still remains the same. As per LCIA means that most said countries are able to use such a form or similar  arbitration process. Whether such is used is treated at the time of litigation. The end buyer signs the contract, hence where is  his argument not to accept such methods of settling disputes as dictated by the seller. The intermediary buy has no choice but to accept the Suppliers contract terms .  but it wont accepted if UCP, incoterms and most of those 6 elements are not present.(which they always are is a straight deal)

A writ or  summons issued to a Chinese importer to appear in London, does not means, that no case is heard because he does not turn up. The case could still be tested and if pending charges are serious  a warrant could be issued. Again enforcing such to a person in a country like Nigeria won't prevail until 5/ 6/10 year later that person takes a holiday to the U.K where is is arrested and charged and in where the English courts are able to hear such a charges even of a citizen charged in  another Country. No matter what laws are applied Jurisdiction  enforcing ruling issues will always prevail.Hence if the intermediary is going to trade , then it may as well depended upon the virtues of superior contract formation rules and laws as it applies to the greatest law givers of all. The English  law system spread throughout its dominions via trade and war going back centuries- In matters of precedence nearly 1000 years. In fact Alfred 'the Great' law giver  are those same  laws which form the base to  the laws of England today, But 'King Alfred" used laws based on another law - the first created law of all as produced by Moses(the Ten Commandments) .Not many people know this. Hence technically,  English law can find connection directly to Mosaic laws- that's how far back it's able to transverse. Though shall not steal - still means the same today except it may draw inference to specifically define such matters - Money laundering, fraud, deceptive practices, Shop lifting, etc..

In short The end buyer takes action against  seller , jurisdiction is his to apply and usually takes a long time to establish. The Seller on the other other hand forces litigation aimed towards  an end buyer  may  have the case heard in a country which through Dominions already have English law principles established.If not ,the intent  of parties to the contract are examined before matter of jurisdiction are first rules upon, which could take years to arrive at, before litigation even commences.   Further;  critical ruling in superior country are made in England are taken notice of by other Jurisdiction. No even USA laws can match wits with a decision made by a Judge here in Melbourne using the virtues of English laws in the Australian legal system. The mighty Dow Jones USA with all it lawyers  could not defeat the matter of local citizen  taking legal action against such in regards to a internet applied slur- and winning.

Once the goods are on board ship international terms and condition are applied, to which English laws rule supreme"when compared to others' laws. Even a country like Russia would need to apply some virtues of English rules and laws(elements) on their contract. Even an English ruling that a UAE trader ordered contracted goods and then stated he could not opened a pre-advised credit as his bank won't allow it , does not cancel the contract. The contract stands- as the law states that the UAE trader should have been informed if  he was able to open such a credit before signing the contract- More importantly though, English law recognizes the difference between once who acts for a principal and one who does not. English law also recognizes the precarious nature of the intermediary. You want to trade in the wider scope of the nature of business be applied? then the virtues of the doctrine stands firm strong.If there is an alternative safer way to trade , I haven't come across such in 25 years of trading.

Hope insight helps Regards

Davide Giovanni Papa

www.smice.net

www.ftnexporting.com  
juanito
 
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:40 pm


Return to Maritime Law

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post