Advise UK Commodities Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Advise UK Commodities - Assignment ExampleOne give away that arises under the incoterms is the CIF1. This term refers to the Cost Insurance Freight. In this case, the issue of CIF Southampton arises, and this involves the cost, and Insurance Freights of delivering the products to Southampton. In CIF, the seller insures the products during the move of stockpileation and delivery. FOB Southampton on the hand denotes that the emptor will withdraw to bear all the risks, and costs associated with the transportation of the goods once the goods pass through the ships rail. In this case, UK commodities contracted Dutch grains, to provider 45,000 bags of wheat, in March. The supplier had to ship them directly to Southampton, from Rotterdam. As shippers, the company arranged to transport the cargo and the goods were at the port by 25th of March. However, the ship delayed till the 2nd of April and despite this, the ship master issued the goods with a denudate bill of lading without checki ng. The ship used another channel that of Calais, instead of that of Rotterdam. The result of this weaken of the contractual agreement was that the price of wheat fell, and a large quantity of wheat under transit was damaged. Dutch Grains breached the contract in the following ways, 1. Did not transport the commodities at the required time. Section 29 of the 1979 barter of goods act outlines the rules concerning the delivery of a product or goods. Section 29 part 1 of the sales agreement of goods act denotes that it is the stipulations of the contract to determine who will transport the goods to the buyers premises. Section 29, part 3 of the act denotes that the seller must send the goods to the buyer, at within the agreed time, and if the time period is not agreed, the seller must send the goods to the buyer within a reasonable time, and this time must work out on the matter of facts. Section 13 of the 1979 Sale of Goods act denotes that a buyer can disown to accept the goods if they do not meet the description contained in the contractual agreement2, and this also includes the time when the goods argon supposed to be delivered. In our case above, the carrier hired by Dutch grains did not transport the grains within a reasonable time, because they were to transport it on March, and they failed. They also used a longer route that contributed to the delay in delivery of the wheat. On this basis, they breached the nourishment contained in section 29 parts 3 of the 1979 sale of goods act. Section 29 part 5 of the act denotes that if this is breached, the contract can be rendered void3, and consequently the buyer can refuse to accept the goods. 2. Did not supply the goods in the right quality. Another breach by the carriers is that they supplied the wheat products when they were already damaged. Section 35 part 2 of the 1979 sales act denotes that a buyer who has never examined the goods under consideration has not accepted the goods until he has examined them in order to agree if the goods are in accordance to the agreements stipulated in the contract. Subsection (b) of part 2 denotes that if the sale of the goods is by sample, the buyer must ascertain that quality of the goods under consideration, matches the quality of the sample. In our case above, a large semblance of the wheat were damaged4. On this basis, the buyer can reject the goods under consideration. This argument is reinforced by the provisions contained in Section 35A part 1(a) which denotes that the buyer has a right to reject goods brought to him by a seller, if he breaches the contractual agreement. Part (b) of the same section denotes that a buyer can reject some of the goods that have breached his contractual obligation with the seller. In our case abov