Part B

The provisions under CIF contracts give room for a buyer to be able to reject the shipping documents
based on different applicable criteria allowed for on a global scale. The most common of this reason
is that this right can be exercised if there exist discrepancies between the documents and the
provisions in the contract. This rejection essentially mean that the buyer is also rejecting that e
goods agreed under the contractual terms represented by the shipping documents and as such it is a
rejection of goods supplied. In the case of Arnold Karberg and Co v Blythe, Green Jourdain, it was
stated that the contract is not limited to the arrival of the goods but rather that they should arrive in
compliance with the provisions of the contract completed between the involved parties. This was
held to be the standard practice and as such to apply to all types of CIF contracts with the exception
where the provisions of the contract so provide for ordinary destination bound carriage given along
with the insurance form such goods on the shipping process. This insurance form should provide for
the insurance cover lasting until the destination of the goods is reached. However, the buyer loses
these rights in the case where he or she has accepted the shipment documents and completes the
payment transaction without voicings any objections. This is legally taken to mean that the buyer
has conceded to the bill of lading provided and tendered by the shipper and thus it is assumed that
he would have properly inspected the bill of lading. Acceptance is effective upon the payment of the
fee. The right of the buyer is generally limited only to the events that occur to the goods represented
by the shipping document before they are delivered for shipping.it was held by Donaldson J. that the
losing of goods nor damage rendered to them during transit is not reason enough for the buyer to
reject the goods and as such should sign the shipping documents and pay the fee as agreed in the
contract.

PART C

There is no one set definition used to explain a FOB contract due to the nature of their variance.
They are generally known to be flexible instruments that can be modified to suit the parties but,
however, there exists baseline obligations that arising from this contract. In the case of Wimble,
Sons and Co v Rosenberg, the court held that the seller had the basic obligations to board the goods
on ship while ensuring that these goods were in conformity with the contractual terms of the
transaction. The seller has no such obligation under this type of contract, to make shipping
reservations in anticipation of future sells and as such it is the duty of the buyer to designate the
ship for which the goods are to be transported by and then communicate the information to the
seller in consideration of reasonable time to allow for the seller's comfort to be able deliver the
goods aboard the ship. Cost of shipment is the responsibility of the buyer. As mentioned above,
these provisions are open to modification by the agreement under the FOB contract. These
variances are usually in response to the nature of the relationship between the seller and the buyer
and the arrangements they would have agreed to within the premise of their contract. Three
considerations alighted in the case of Pyrene and Co Ltd v Scindia Steam Navigation Co Ltd, by Devlin
J are generally the basic expectations of the Court when dealing with this kind of contract. The first
of these conditions as mentioned above, is the requirement for the Buyer to nominate the vessel on
which the goods are to be loaded. This is made with the assumption that there exists no prior
contractual relationship between the Buyer and the Seller. After the buyer has successfully
nominated the ship onto which the goods are to be loaded, the obligation then shifts to the seller to
deliver the goods to the ship and acquire the bill of lading for which the document can be completed
using the identity of the buyer or that of the including the buyer as a consignor and after this process
is completed it is then his duty to proceed the bill of lading to the buyer. This essentially means that
the contract is carriage is completed by the seller who then becomes a part of its provisions. This
was described as the basic party obligations under the classic provisions off classical FOB contracts as
addressed by Devlin J. however, the existence of freedom under the provisions of the FOB contract
are such that there may be imposed as per the agreement of the parties.

Under this other type of contract, the seller has the burden of carriage arrangements and under
some circumstances, even the insurance. The seller has to then submit the goods for shipping and a
complete the bill of lading under his own identity after which he also proceeds it to the buyer. The
seller is part of the contract and this is quite similar to the provisions of CIF contracts but, however,
the under these provisions, the contractual price is tendered excluding the costs of carriage and this
exists as a way of safeguarding the seller against any possible increases of the price for which the
payment will be completed by the buyer including any additional fees that may be required.

The third alternative under the FOB contract is that the buyer may arrange and complete the
contract of carriage in advance of the transaction with the seller. Under these circumstances, the
seller will then take the goods to the ship and instead of receiving a bill of lading, the seller will be
given a mate's receipt which he then has to forward to the buyer who will make use of it in order to
gain the complete bill of lading.

The main concern of the contract here is risk management and it was established that burden of risk
does not follow with the passing of property under the provisions of a FOB contract and this follows
from the provisions of the general rule from section 20 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which is also
considered to affect FOB contracts in its application. This provision essentially means that in te
Pyrenes case the seller was still responsible for the damage incurred during the loading of the
package because it had occurred before crossing into the ship's carriage

CIF contracts have a close resemblance to the FOB contracts with the exception that they incur
extend3d s3rices and so is the most preferred type in common use today. Under CIF contracts, the
seller must take measures to ensure that the goods forwarded or services provided are all in
conformity with the provisions of the contract. To this end, the seller is obliged to give the goods
along with the contract of sale or any other substitute of this document provided in electronic form
as dictated by the contract. The Sale of Goods Act S.13 impose the obligation on the seller to ship
the goods in accordance with the contr4act description as upheld in the case of Filley v. Pope.
Furthermore, the seller is supposed to provide the necessary authorisation and required licences
along with the customs requirements and all this takes place at the expense of the seller. As regards
the contract of carriage, the seller operates at this own expense when submitting the goods to the
location of shipment and this provision functions in line with the normal method of transportation
regular within the trade of that particular product. This generally extends to mean the expectations
incurred upon the seller to make shipment arrangements within the normal and reasonable times
within that trade. In the case of Bowes v. Shand, it was upheld following the general rule that the
whole of the goods must be shipped within the space of the agreed time specified within the
contract and f there is no such provision within the contract then the rule of reasonable time is
supposed to be followed. Apart from this requirement, the seller also has to provide for the marine
insurance to cover for the goods and allow the buyer to rely upon as per the minimum requirements
established in the Institute Chicago Clauses. This provision includes the obligation to obtain and
forward a bill of lading to be provided to the buyer. Lastly, the seller must then tender the
documents to the buyer as a way of completing the sale allowing for payment. On the other hand,
the buyer's obligations are quite a few and they include the payment of all the additional costs that
may be incurred during the transportation of the goods. in the case of Biddel Brothers v. Clemens,
the trial judge stated that the payment of the goods was supposed to be effected upon the reception
of the bill of lading and not upon the reception of the package He is supposed to obtain the goods
from the arranged port of reception where the goods would have arrived and also to receive and
complete all the documents provided. In Ireland v. Livingstone, the Court ruled out that the payment
of freight charges is supposed is due upon the reception of the goods and that the seller is supposed
to credit the charges upon shipment.