Transfer Of Risk In Sale Agreement

Veröffentlicht am 13. April 2021 von 0

Warning: A non-numeric value encountered in /usr/www/users/livess/liveshopping/wp-content/themes/lsa/single.php on line 172

The risk of loss or deterioration of the goods is transferred to the purchaser [267] if the goods were delivered to the custody of the carrier or another person. [268] 106. „1. Where the sales contract involves the transport of the goods and the seller is not required to deposit it at a particular location, the risk is transferred to the buyer when the goods are handed over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer in accordance with the sale agreement. If the seller is required to deliver the goods to a carrier at a particular location, the danger will only be transferred to the buyer when the goods are delivered to the carrier at that location. The fact that the seller has the right to keep documents controlling the disposition of the goods has no bearing on the transfer of risk. Finally, it can be argued with certainty that the use of the Convention, with the addition of Incoterms or documents such as the UCC, can, if properly invoked, bring a positive force in determining the transfer of risk. Thus, the author has provided the reader with the appropriate information for a more complete analysis of the risk transfer of a seller and a buyer in international trade contracts in the traditions of the old trading laws. The credit-loss risks contained in the U.C.C are effective in 49 countries and have not been changed since 1958.

In November 1987, several academics [198] submitted a proposal for a study of Article 2 to the Permanent Drafting Council of the Single Code of Trade [199]. As a result of this proposal, a selected group was appointed under the direction of Professor Speidel, . . . „consider whether to revise Article 2 and, if necessary, report on any revisions that may be necessary.“ [200] This group completed its study on March 1, 1990. [201] The group has worked with the principle that uniformity in the area of trade law in the United States has always been seen as an important objective for the legislature. [202] It is therefore understandable why the U.C.C. had to be re-examined because of the ratification of the convention. After reviewing the data, the PEB Task Force submitted a final report on March 5, 1991.

Its recommendation was to amend Article 2 and redefine it to reflect changes in the environment. Although the 1987 proposal does not refer to the Convention, the group`s preliminary report contains several references. [203] b) If it is to deliver them to a specific destination and the goods are properly auctioned there while they are owned by the carrier, the risk of loss is transferred to the purchaser, if the goods are properly auctioned, to allow the purchaser to deliver. Speidel, R.E., „The Revision of UCC Article 2, sales in Light of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.“ (1995) Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business.165 As stated in Part 1, the method of the agreement dealing with bulk sales in the transit procedure is somewhat questionable. Without checking the details of this chapter, it is clear that parties to bulk sales in transit should do all they can to avoid the application of the provisions of section 68. We know that the risk allocation is made before the goods are transferred to the buyer. This has an impact on the party at the end of the line. To illustrate the later case of Southern Ry. System v. Leyden Shipping Corp.[404] imposed a shipment after the designation „FAS Vessel, Mobile Alabama“ on the seller of the goods at his own expense and at the risk of delivering the goods in question next to the vessel.

Only then would the title of the goods be transferred to the purchaser. Like their U.S. counterpart, the rules of the risk allocation agreement apply without agreement to the contrary.


Schreibe einen Kommentar:


Zu diesem Beitrag gibt es noch keine Kommentare.

Dieser Beitrag kann nicht kommentiert werden