Therefore, the seller's acceptance does not rule out-after the goods arrive in Hong Kong 1 days later, the buyer will definitely need to deliver the documents, and the principle of D/P payment, regardless of the number of days of forwarding, must-this is the main difference between D/P and D/A
7, and the seller should be responsible for the losses-because the contract terms are that after the goods are loaded by FOB seller, the risk will be transferred to the buyer, and When the goods are sailing, the quality of rice is affected because the waves are too large and the rice is soaked in seawater. Therefore, the seller shall not bear any responsibility for the losses.
8, I find it reasonable to do so-because the letter of credit is an independent beneficiary of the contract documents submitted by the issuing bank, and the seemingly consistent credit documents are paid, and there is no actual goods. Therefore, I noticed that the bank that refused to issue the card was justified.
(1) The differences between issuing banks conform to UCP6.
(2) A mistake in this business is misunderstanding the letter of credit. What the credit does not understand is that the quantity and the letter of shipment are not allowed in batches and transshipment are allowed. After the letter of credit is changed, the issuing bank points out that the total amount of allowed partial shipments is 5 tons. A company, because it mistakes 5 tons, 4 tons and 1 tons of ships, therefore, does not meet the requirements. Record the bill of lading submitted in transshipment, which is also in violation of the provisions of the letter of credit, and the issuing bank refuses to pay.
correct operation: on August 31st, 5 tons of goods were shipped directly to the destination port, and how to deliver the documents was negotiated.