Trade Costs and Global Supply Chains †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Trade Costs and Global Supply Chains. Answer: Introduction: According to the case study Kanga private limited has set 100 tons of beef meat for delivering Sing Pty Ltd in Singapore under the CIF Singapore. However for the lightning the ship was damaged and the refrigerator refrigeration system also not working there for 50 tons of beef meat has gone bad where other 50 terms of kangaroo meat was in good condition. Now according to the contract with CIF they need to deliver total hundred tons of meats. Now according to the Rule of Intercoms in Australian International sale of goods the essential freight terms concerning the carriage or delivery of the goods (Kelly and La Cava 2014). According to the intercoms 2010 there are 11 terms which define the various Modes of transport where the rights and liabilities of the seller. According to the CISF contract it defines the cost insurance and freight where it difference the supplementary obligation for the Sailor where it provides Maritime insurance for any risk of loss or damage caused to the merchandise. It also provide capital amount of insurance premium for paying to the vendor (Nugroho 2015.). The insurance also provide the Assurance of the minimum guarantee where it helps to cover the minimum anticipated price along with surcharge of 10% for the currency of the contract. When buyer held liable for the cost and risk of transportation then it is the duty of merchandise to deliver the shape at the loading port (Kelly and La Cava 2014). According to the Calzaturifi cio Claudia snc v Olivieri Footwear Ltd case the court has find that the plaintiff of the case has make allegation against the buyer who also located in United state has agreed to purchase shoes but however he felt his duty to duly delivered ex works (Kelly and La Cava 2014). The plan chief was not aware about the material facts in the dispatch and the buyer the denied the presence of contractual relationship to delivery "ex works". Therefore the delivered goods are at issue and according to the counter claim the damages for the goods had received deliberate and non-conforming (Nugroho 2015.). According to the CIS it is from of domestic US law rules where the court has stated that it could be considered evidence of statement made during the negotiations where the parties must agreed any practices between themselves which they have established however the court did not provide any judgments for the plaintiff due to the fact that material facts were in disp utes and denied by the defendant(Kelly and La Cava 2014). In another case MW Hardy Co Inc v AV Pound Co Ltd [1955] it has been found that when a contract has been made in London the buyers agreed according to the contact to buy from the seller a quantity of Portuguese turpentine and they made the contract according to the requirement for the shipment of the goods. However under Portuguese law that turpentine contained was unlawful except under license has been produced by Custom House (Nugroho 2015.). Therefore in this case the license and regarding some political reasons it has been refused and they are fail to deliver the goods. However later they submitted to the aviators for the dispute to arbitration where the buyer has refusing to accept delivery and also claim the damages. Therefore finally the buyer appealed and the court of appeal allowed The Appeal holding that the contract was discharged (Kelly and La Cava 2014). The fact of the case is Kanga Pty Ltd had enter into a contract with the Sing Pty Ltd in Singapore as per the rule of governed by the law of Queensland where they need to supply 100 tons of beef meet as per the contract of CIF Singapore (Incoterms 2010). Now when they loaded the goods in their ship named Jumping Jack Xpress at the Port of Brisbane. However, in the sea the ship was affected with lightning which damage the refrigerator system of the container which is holding the meats. Now when they reached in Singapore they have found that almost 50 tones of meat has been gone bad and other 50 tones of cheaper kangaroo meat was in good condition. Now the legal obligation has arises that as per the contract of CIF Singapore they did they will face any legal obstacles or not (Nugroho 2015.). The incoterms defines the collection or a uniform of interpretation essential terms which is affecting in the carriage or delivery of goods in International Law of Sale of Goods. In the incoterms rules are applicable only for the various modes of the transport where the rights and liabilities only applicable for the seller and buyer. Though the incoterms are applicable for the both international and domestic transaction, the CIF contract is applicable only for the international transaction (Nugroho 2015.). In the terms the parties in the contract must highlighted every points for avoiding the misunderstanding related to the selling of the goods. Under the CIF terms introduced for the Cost Insurance and Freight which consider the Carriage and Insurance in the selling and buying any products (Kelly and La Cava 2014). According to the terms of the sale on Departure defines that when the ship was shipped for the merchandise then the risk and hazards liability goes on the buyer. The buyer own the liability of the goods if it faced any hazards or risks before it reaches to its destination. The liability of all charges also applicable for the buyer. at the moment when the seller leave the part the obligation all apply to the buyer until it shipped to the destination of the buyer. Under the term of CIF, the term Ex Works (EXW) which also describe the meaning of departure from the warehouse where the liability of the buyer has been stated. According to the term EXW, the obligation applied to the seller only if they insure the goods of merchandise then it will be known as EXW Loaded where they will be liable for the risks and other charges of hazards. Therefore it is the liability of the buyer of the risk if the goods are not insures by the seller (Kelly and La Cava 2014). Under the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) the sec-23 defines that until the goods are not transferred to the buyer, it is the liability of the seller off all risks but when the goods are delivered to the buyer the buyer will be responsible forever risk and hazards. According to te case study, if the delivery of the 100 tons of meat will proceed according to the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld) then the seller will be liable for the risks and hazards for the issues (Nugroho 2015.). Under the incoterms terms the CIF contract has defines that the seller has no obligation for the damage of the goods while he was intend to deliver the goods to the buyer. The liability for the good will only applicable to the buyer. According to the case study, Kanga Pty Ltd has no liability for the goods which are shipping t the Sing Pty Ltd in Singapore (Kelly and La Cava 2014). Under the Sale of Goods Act 1896 (Qld), when the goods are shipping to the buyer then it is the liability if the seller until it is transferred to the buyer. The sec- 23 of this act defines the Risk prima facie passes with property. Therefore it can be concluded that the seller has the liability of the goods if it was not in good condition. According to the case study, the issue is whether SS Pacific has any liability as the carrier of its liability towards the various shippers for the effect its trip causing 14 containers of equipment to fall over in the sea? According to the case study the SS Pacific is carrying a particular livestock and abattoir and related equipment from Brisbane to Indonesia however the cyclone attack affect the 14 container carrying the equipment Has Fallen to the water. Now SS Pacific was moving slowly and attack and bordered by the sea pirates. Later SS Pacific was boarded in the Indonesia without the livestock but they have 116 containers of equipment. Now it has been found that there were no mention points in the contract about the liability for damage or loss to the livestock and cargo and whether the abattoir equipment would be carried on the deck. According to the Hague Visby Rules it has been provided that the international rules for the ships who internationally carriage of goods by sea (Huang 2013). These rules also known as English common rules where the bargaining power then the shipper was more attractive and it also provide the protection of the interest of the carrier of the owner of the cargo and apply several affreightment applications regarding the carrier. The Hague Visby Rules is also known as the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating Two Bills of Landing. However the rules finally amended at under SDR protocol which right adopted in many countries and applied for the carriage of goods by sea (Stevens 2016.). According to the Article 3 of Hague Visby Rules when the carrier watching the ship then they must have some due diligence regarding the use of ship. They must check the ship whether it is seaworthy or not (Huang 2013) . In the Article 3 this provisions are mentioned for exercising the acts of regarding the voyage of the ship. In the second clause the point of this rule is related to the provision of Article 4 where it has been mentioned that the carrier should properly and carefully load, handle, store, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried in the third clause (Stevens 2016.). The rule also mentioned that when the goods has been received as per the charge of the carrier then according to the demand of the shipper any issue can arises regarding the bill of landing become the evidence of prime facia then it should follow all the previous explanations. The another rule is when shipper make the guaranteed of the career for the accuracy of the time of the shipment then the y must mention about the marks, number, quantity, weight and in every other details regarding the shipment. However in this part the responsibility and liability applied for the carrier under the contract of carriage of the sea (Stevens 2016.). When any loss or damage occur due to some natural calamity at the time of the removal of the goods then the loss or damages should not the applied in between 3 days for the carrier who deliver the goods according to the description in the bill of landing(Huang 2013) . When the goods are delivered on the bill of landing by the carrier then to the buyer and in this matter buyer demand any other ship bill of landing like title of the goods or any other issues then the career must take legal action against the shipper in the clause eight. It has been mentioned that when any loss or damage occurs regarding the shipment of the goods and if it is fine that the career is liable for the negligence fault or failure of the duties and obligation then it will be his liability to recover the damages and sometimes the contract also become void. (Huang 2013) The fact of the case study is SS Pacific is a ship where its captain was carrying livestock and about abattoir related equipment from Brisbane to Indonesia in the middle of the sea. The Ship was affected by the cyclone Debbie fridge which cause several damage to the ship and almost 14 containers carrying equipment has fallen to the sea. However it has been find that the Ship has not under any best condition where it should be maintained during the port stays. It has been also found that the half of the Ship has been cracked which was not fixed and therefore when the ship was boarding on the sea it has drawn in water almost 456 cattle. After the Cyclone affect the ship it was moving very slowly and later the sea pirates has boarded and have the control of the ship and the cargo. In this between the times the ship was caring too much of water and after that the ship was located on the coast of Indonesia (Huang 2013). When they put it on Indonesia they have no livestock and cargo but 116 containers of abattoir related requirements were still on the board of the ship (Stevens 2016.). Therefore it has been found that those equipments have been arrived. Now according to the case study it has been also found that the livestock and cargo both are carried according to bills of landing and it has been excluded in the contract about the liability for the carrier for damage or loss to the livestock and cargo from any obligation for the carriage of the sea (Huang 2013). Conclusion According to the Hague Visby Rules the Article 3 and Article 4 provide such obligations for the carrier who is shipping the ship according to the Article 3 clause 1 defines that the exercise of due diligence of the carrier where they must look for the Ship which is able to support the ship must have problem and equipment and every supply in the ship. There should have a refrigerating system, full chambers and other important equipments of the ship where the goods are carried and safe for the reservation. In the clause 2 of the provision, it has mentioned about the proper and careful handling monitoring, stowing, and care for the carried goods. The clothes Chi defines about several positions of the shipper and the career where career must show a bill of landing to the shipper if any issue arises regarding the identification of the goods according to the contacts or the bill of landing. It is the obligation of the career that they should look for the packages pieces, or the quantity or weight which was furnished in writing by the shipper (Huang 2013). References Armstrong, G., Adam, S., Denize, S. and Kotler, P., 2014. Principles of marketing. Pearson Australia. Calzaturifi cio Claudia snc v Olivieri Footwear Ltd 96 Civ. 8052 (HB) (THK) Coetzee, J., 2015. Incoterms and the lex mercatoria. Direito, 1(12). Forsyth, P. and Seetaram, N., 2016. The Future of Australian International Aviation: Liberalisation, Competition, and the Dutch Disease. Air Transport in the Asia Pacific, p.143. Gaskell, N., 2017. Bills of Lading 2e: Law and Contracts. Routledge. Huang, V.T., Xu, Y., Lim, Y.D., Neo, F.K.T. and Ng, S.C., 2013. Rotterdam rules: should Singapore ratify. Hung, N.P., 2015. Progress of the Rotterdam Rules 2009 from the Hague-Visby Rules 1968 in Harmonising Carriage of Goods by Sea (Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex). Katsivela, M., 2017. The treatment of the sea peril exception of the Hague-Visby Rules in common law and civil law jurisdictions. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 16(1), pp.19-36. Kelly, G. and La Cava, G., 2014. International trade costs, global supply chains and value-added trade in Australia. Reserve Bank of Australia. Kingston, J. and Johnson-Lynch, M.A., 2014. CARIBBEAN MARITIME INSTITUTE. Nair, A., 2013. A note on Norden: Voyage Charterparties, the Hague/Visby Rules and Enforcing Foreign Arbitration Awards. Austl. NZ Mar. LJ, 27, p.90. Nugroho, B., 2015. The use of CIF Incoterms in Indonesias import declarations. World Customs Journal, p.91. Omar, P. ed., 2016. International insolvency law: Themes and perspectives. Routledge. Pearson, G., 2017. Further challenges for Australian consumer law. In Consumer Law and Socioeconomic Development (pp. 287-305). Springer, Cham. Pound (A V) Company Ltd v M W Hardy Company Inc. ; Elizabeth B [1955] EWCA Civ J0225-1, [1956] AC 588 Stapleton, D.M., Pande, V. and O'Brien, D., 2014. EXW, FOB OR FCA? Choosing the right Incoterm and why it matters to maritime shippers. Journal of Transportation Law, Logistics, and Policy, 81(3), p.227. Stevens, R., 2016. The migrant crisisimplications for PI cover. Zahid, A. and Inn, N.H., 2014. Obligations of seller in cif contract under english law and incoterms 2010: a comparative study. In sgem2014 conference on political sciences, law, finance, economics and tourism (vol. 1, no. Sgem2014 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7105-25-4/ISSN 2367-5659, September 1-9, 2014, Vol. 1, 709-716 pp, pp. 709-716). STEF92 Technology.