Article

Factual Summary: On or about 29 September 2009, the plaintiff and the defendant entered a Framework Contract, covenanting that the latter agreed to buy fuel oil from the former and it shall pay the consideration in full amount within three months after it picked up the fuel oil. The Framework Contract also provided that if the defendant delayed its payment, it shall indemnify the plaintiff by paying 0.06% per day of the contract price.

On or about 7 October 2008, the plaintiff delivered the fuel oil and the defendant issued receipt, confirming that it received the goods.

The defendant did not pay the consideration until after three months since it received the goods, so the plaintiff sued the defendant for payment of goods value with interest occurred.

The defendant alleged that after it signed the Framework Contract with the plaintiff, it entered a Purchase Agreement with the third party Dagang Petroleum in which the defendant agreed to sell fuel oil to Dagang Petroleum. The defendant argued that the Framework Contract was designed for increasing production value and the contract was “with documents, receipt but without goods”. Also, the defendant claimed that neither the plaintiff had goods (fuel oil) available nor the parties in the Framework Contract and the Purchase Agreement actually needed the goods, because the transactions are fraudulent and all parties only cared about the documents. In conclusion, the defendant argued that the Framework Contract was valid in formality but void in essence, and that the plaintiff’s claim was fraudulent.

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of the ICC or Coastline Solutions.