INTERNATIONAL SALE CONTRACTS FT

International Sale Contracts FT

International Sale Contracts FT

1- Merchants are not in the habit of placing upon their contracts stipulations to which they do not attach some value and importance' Lord Cairns in Bowes v Shand [1877] 2 AC 433. Under an arrival contract, the buyer is bound to pay the price only if actual delivery of the goods is made to him at the port of delivery, the trader bearing all the charges up to but not encompassing unloading charges and trade duties. Property and risk will pass with delivery of possession. It is not sufficient that the seller tenders documents; the buyer is entitled to the goods themselves. Lord Cairns in Bowes v Shand [1877] 2 AC 433. It was held by the House of Lords that these periods were inconsistent with a factual cif agreement and that in detail the agreement was for the sale and consignment of items ex ship. Consequently, the seller's failure to deliver the goods through the outbreak of war enabled the buyers to recover the price as on a total failure of consideration. If the location of shipment were only an innominate period, arguments would often originate as to the buyer's right to decline a tender of items at a dock other than that contracted for.

There would be an issue whether it was so far from, or had such different characteristics from, the port of delivery identified in the contract as to deprive the buyer of substantially the whole benefit of the sale contract. The doubt to which such arguments would be compelled to give increase and the certainty which is accomplished if the location of shipment is a status of the agreement is apparently a highly applicable consideration in concluding how to classify the term.

Statements made in the formation of a contract could be categorised intoeither, condition, warranty and representation. Whether a statement is a contractual term or warranty depends ultimately on he intention with which it was made.The distinction between terms and representations rests upon the intention of the parties as objectively ascertained i.e. did the parties intend that the statement maker was making a binding promise as to the truth of the statement. Lord Moulton in the case of Heibut v Buckelton, said that, “the intention of the parties can only be deduced from the totality of clues and no lesser standard of such kind can be unanimously true”. Where the maker of a statement asked the other party to verify its truthfulness it is improbable to be a periods Ecay v Godfrey (1947) (referece of  full case regulation in base notes)- the trader of a vessel who inquired the purchaser to assesses its condition.

In Schawel v Read (1913) when the trader inquired the purchaser not to hassle verifying the correctness of his declaration, where declaration is of such significance to the individual relying on it without which he would not have went into into a agreement Coachman v Hill (1947), where the manufacturer of the declaration ...