法搜网--中国法律信息搜索网
濞夋洖绶ユ穱鈩冧紖 | 濞夋洖绶ラ弬浼存 | 濡楀牅绶� | 缁儳鎼ч弬鍥╃彿 | 閸掓垳绨ㄥ▔鏇炵伐 | 濮樻垳绨ㄥ▔鏇炵伐 | 缂佸繑绁瑰▔鏇炵伐 | 鐞涘本鏂傚▔鏇炵伐 | 鐠囧顔撳▔鏇炵伐 | 閸氬牄鈧偓閵嗏偓閸氾拷 | 濡楀牅绶ョ划楣冣偓锟� | 濞夋洖绶ラ弬鍥﹀姛 | 閸氬牆鎮撻懠鍐╂拱 | 濞夋洖绶ョ敮姝岀槕 | 閸欐瓕鈧啴顣芥惔锟� | 
濞夋洖绶ラ崶鍙ュ姛 | 鐠囧顔撻幐鍥у础 | 鐢摜鏁ゅ▔鏇☆潐 | 濞夋洖绶ョ€圭偛濮� | 濞夋洖绶ラ柌濠佺疅 | 濞夋洖绶ラ梻顔剧摕 | 濞夋洝顫夌憴锝堫嚢 | 鐟佷礁鍨介弬鍥﹀姛 | 鐎诡亝纭剁猾锟� | 濮樻垵鏅㈠▔鏇犺 | 鐞涘本鏂傚▔鏇犺 | 缂佸繑绁瑰▔鏇犺 | 閸掓垶纭剁猾锟� | 缁€鍙ョ窗濞夋洜琚� | 濡楀牅绶ョ搾瀣◢ | 閵嗏偓閵嗏偓閵嗏偓閵嗏偓
为什么CIF合同不是文件买卖合同

  Not only the goods, but the documents themselves can also be rejected under certain circumstances. Where the defect in the documents is discovered before paying for them, the buyer is entitled to reject them.32 Furthermore, assuming the documents tendered were in conformity, but the goods shipped are defective and that certain defects or non-conformity in the goods would not have been apparent on the face of the documents, under this circumstance, although the buyer is not allowed to reject the documents after the discharge of goods, he is allowed to claim damage to the difference between the value of the goods at the time of delivery and the value of the goods if they had been conforming. It seems the buyer can recover his position as if he had been allowed to reject the documents, so some author think it is yet another argument why the CIF contract is a sale of goods rather than a sale of documents contract.33
  IV. Conclusion
  It seems during current international commercial practice, delivery of the goods themselves into the hands of the buyer is not of the same importance in a CIF sale as under a FOB sale or other relevant condition, and the demands arising from international finance also exaggerate the documentary characteristic of a CIF sale, which have tended to blur the relative positions of the goods and the documents and led to the apparent current confusion. However, based on the analysis of the real intention of parties in a CIF contract, and the conditional and symbolic function of bill of lading, it can be concluded that in its historic, legal and economic context, a CIF contract is a contract for sale of goods rather than sale of documents.
  
【注释】  1. 2 K.B. 379 at 388.
2. See Holland Colombo Trading Society Ltd v Segu Mohamed Khaja Alawedeen 2 Lloyd''s Rep. 45.
3. 1 K.B. 198.
4. Devlin J. Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders & Shippers Ltd , 2 Q.B. 459.
5. See Hindley & Co v East India Produce Co, 2 Lloyd''s Rep. 515.
6. See Orient Co Ltd v Brekke, 1 KB 531.
7. 2 Lloyd''s Rep 45 (PC).
8. 1 All ER 501.
9. 1 KB 198.


第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 页 共[9]页
上面法规内容为部分内容,如果要查看全文请点击此处:查看全文
【发表评论】 【互动社区】
 
相关文章




婵炲娲栫欢銉︾┍閳╁啩绱� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘娴煎瓨顦� | 婵℃鐗呯欢锟� | 缂侇喗鍎抽幖褔寮崶鈺冨娇 | 闁告帗鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 婵ɑ鍨崇花銊モ枖閺囩偟浼� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩偟浼� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾斥枖閺囩偟浼� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃锟� | 婵℃鐗呯欢銉у垝妤e啠鍋撻敓锟� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╁棘閸ワ箑濮� | 闁告艾鐗嗛幃鎾绘嚑閸愨晜鎷� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉ф暜濮濆瞼妲� | 
婵炲娲栫欢銉╁炊閸欍儱濮� | 閻犲洤顦抽鎾诲箰閸パ冪 | 閻㈩垰鎽滈弫銈呪枖閺団槅娼� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉р偓鍦仜婵拷 | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂煂婵犱胶鐤� | 婵炲娲栫欢銉╂⒒椤斿墽鎽� | 婵炲娲濋~澶屾喆閿濆牜鍤� | 閻熶椒绀侀崹浠嬪棘閸ワ箑濮� | 閻庤浜濈涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 婵ɑ鍨甸弲銏犫枖閺囩姾顫� | 閻炴稑鏈弬鍌氣枖閺囩姾顫� | 缂備礁绻戠粊鐟扳枖閺囩姾顫� | 闁告帗鍨剁涵鍓佺尵閿燂拷 | 缂佲偓閸欍儳绐楁繛澶嬫礈鐞氾拷 | 闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾闁靛棌鍋撻柕鍡忓亾