L/C terms state shipment from any airport in Europe and FCA Europe under goods description. Invoice presented shows FCA Sweden and AWB shows shipment from Frankfurt.
Do we have an incosistency which would be valid as a discrepancy?
Thanks for your views on this topic!
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
hi.
it is discrepant.
invoice should show fca europe (or fca germany-europe).
pls review incoterms 2000 fca - paragraph a.4.
best wishes
bogdan
it is discrepant.
invoice should show fca europe (or fca germany-europe).
pls review incoterms 2000 fca - paragraph a.4.
best wishes
bogdan
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
i'm back.
concerning delivery fca states that goods must be delivered into the custody of the carrier named by the buyer,or chosen by the seller at the named place.if no specific point has been agreed,and if there are several points available,the seller may select the point at the place of delivery which best suits his purpose.in your case the named place is europe.so,the point is any airport in europe. but when invoice shows the named place sweden,the point MUST be any airport in sweden.therefore you have a discrepancy.
bogdan.
concerning delivery fca states that goods must be delivered into the custody of the carrier named by the buyer,or chosen by the seller at the named place.if no specific point has been agreed,and if there are several points available,the seller may select the point at the place of delivery which best suits his purpose.in your case the named place is europe.so,the point is any airport in europe. but when invoice shows the named place sweden,the point MUST be any airport in sweden.therefore you have a discrepancy.
bogdan.
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
Ok, thanks for your input. But in this case there may be no discrepancy regarding L/C terms, since terms of delivery clause and place of delivery is in accordance with L/C terms. Even if the airport of departure is in Frankfurt, the transport liabilities and risk according to the FCA term is transferred from the seller to the buyer at the Swedish border and this might not necessarily mean a discrepany as regards to L/C terms.
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
Dear Johan and Bogdan,
I think it is a tricky one. Surely I would have preferred that the trade term would match the place from which the goods are dispatched. The way that this LC is structured I am not sure you can require that.
First of all, I do not think that the invoice should mention “FCA Europe” (as Bogdan mentions), but be specific as to where delivery has been made – preferably the city (which of course should be within Europe – and I just wonder if anyone is able to define “Europe”
Since it is an FCA shipment the risk transfers when delivery is made to the carrier. In this case it would not be unrealistic that this delivery is actually made to the carrier’s terminal in Sweden – but there is pre-carriage to Frankfurt (perhaps by truck) – and that Frankfurt would then be shown on the AWB as the L/C calls for dispatch by airfreight.
So in fact I would say that the L/C requirements are complied with.
Somehow of course the seller puts himself in a bigger risk than he normally would; as even though he has delivered according to Incoterms 2000 (in Sweden), the goods may be damaged or lost between Sweden and Germany, and he would be unable to produce L/C compliant document: either he would get no AWB – or an “unclean” one. So in any case one should probably advise the parties to be a bit more specific here – if at all possible.
There may be other views here, just browsed through the ICC opinions for “trade term”, and in e.g. R236, the panel of experts could not agree, so there are both a “minority” and a “majority” opinion I have however not been able to find anything that would match this one exactly.
Best regards
Kim
I think it is a tricky one. Surely I would have preferred that the trade term would match the place from which the goods are dispatched. The way that this LC is structured I am not sure you can require that.
First of all, I do not think that the invoice should mention “FCA Europe” (as Bogdan mentions), but be specific as to where delivery has been made – preferably the city (which of course should be within Europe – and I just wonder if anyone is able to define “Europe”
Since it is an FCA shipment the risk transfers when delivery is made to the carrier. In this case it would not be unrealistic that this delivery is actually made to the carrier’s terminal in Sweden – but there is pre-carriage to Frankfurt (perhaps by truck) – and that Frankfurt would then be shown on the AWB as the L/C calls for dispatch by airfreight.
So in fact I would say that the L/C requirements are complied with.
Somehow of course the seller puts himself in a bigger risk than he normally would; as even though he has delivered according to Incoterms 2000 (in Sweden), the goods may be damaged or lost between Sweden and Germany, and he would be unable to produce L/C compliant document: either he would get no AWB – or an “unclean” one. So in any case one should probably advise the parties to be a bit more specific here – if at all possible.
There may be other views here, just browsed through the ICC opinions for “trade term”, and in e.g. R236, the panel of experts could not agree, so there are both a “minority” and a “majority” opinion
I have however not been able to find anything that would match this one exactly.Best regards
Kim
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
Dear Kim,
I agree with you 99%.But if invoice states FCA Sweden and AWB shows Frankfurt/Main as departure airport,couldn't be considered, in respect of art.24 of ISBP,as discrepancy ?
Best regards ,
Bogdan
I agree with you 99%.But if invoice states FCA Sweden and AWB shows Frankfurt/Main as departure airport,couldn't be considered, in respect of art.24 of ISBP,as discrepancy ?
Best regards ,
Bogdan
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
Dear Bogdan,
Well hmm not really sure. You can of course argue both ways. The question is if the fact that the “LC shipment point” is different from the “Risk transition point” constitutes an inconsistency.
I have not been able to find any material on this one – so I will argue (out of the blue) as follows:
1) Both “shipment from” and “trade term” are described very wide in the LC – and both are complied with within the scope set by the LC.
2) As e.g. UCP 500 article 23(a)(ii) indicates the entire transport may be different from the one covered by the LC (If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading…).
So in my logic it would not be unreasonable to assume that one thing is “shipment from” as mentioned in the LC – while another thing is “shipment from / risk point” as mentioned in the commercial contract.
(I am of course aware of the fact that the commercial contract is out of our “scope”).
3) The two pieces of information tells you two different things.
So I do not consider this an inconsistency – and had it been the intention of the parties that the “Shipment from according to the LC” and the “trade term” should match, the LC should have been more precise.
Best regards
Kim
Well hmm not really sure. You can of course argue both ways. The question is if the fact that the “LC shipment point” is different from the “Risk transition point” constitutes an inconsistency.
I have not been able to find any material on this one – so I will argue (out of the blue) as follows:
1) Both “shipment from” and “trade term” are described very wide in the LC – and both are complied with within the scope set by the LC.
2) As e.g. UCP 500 article 23(a)(ii) indicates the entire transport may be different from the one covered by the LC (If the bill of lading indicates a place of receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading…).
So in my logic it would not be unreasonable to assume that one thing is “shipment from” as mentioned in the LC – while another thing is “shipment from / risk point” as mentioned in the commercial contract.
(I am of course aware of the fact that the commercial contract is out of our “scope”).
3) The two pieces of information tells you two different things.
So I do not consider this an inconsistency – and had it been the intention of the parties that the “Shipment from according to the LC” and the “trade term” should match, the LC should have been more precise.
Best regards
Kim
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
My opinion is that invoice should reflect what appears on the transport document and not be in conflict with L/C terms and conditions. In the present case L/C delivery terms is FCA Europe. If then invoice shows delivery as FCA Malmoe for ex. the transport document should show same. I would accept a transport document showing as departure F'furt at condition that the document would show that the carriage has been received at a named place in Sweden by a carrier and then put on a plane at F'furt, but otherwise I would consider documents as discrepant.
Roland
Roland
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
I am inclined to agree with Roland. To me, FCA Sweden indicates the goods were delivered to the carrier in Sweden. However, if I understand correctly, the air trans doc indicates goods were delivered to the carrier in Germany. The benef. could have avoided this problem if it had not messed about and simply stuck with FCA Europe per the credit.
Inconsistency between FCA term and place of delivery
I see a question but not an "inconsistency".
For an inconsistency defense, the two documents should be irreconcilable, not just raise doubt.
So, I would have to be convinced that the FCA Sweden term in the invoice necessarily represented that shipment was made from Sweden. The FCA term in an invoice might only indicate a price term. Even if the FCA term in the invoice is clearly a delivery term, the FCA Incoterm does not obligate the seller to procure a carriage contract, so an FCA recital in an invoice does not necessarily represent that the goods were shipped from Sweden.
And even if the goods were shipped from Sweden, what would prohibit their shipment to Frankfurt, where the seller procured an AWB permitted by the LC.
If anyone wishes to persuade me otherwise, it would help to explain how a refusal notice would describe the claimed inconsistency ("The invoice and AWB are inconsistent, in that ....").
Regards, Jim Barnes
For an inconsistency defense, the two documents should be irreconcilable, not just raise doubt.
So, I would have to be convinced that the FCA Sweden term in the invoice necessarily represented that shipment was made from Sweden. The FCA term in an invoice might only indicate a price term. Even if the FCA term in the invoice is clearly a delivery term, the FCA Incoterm does not obligate the seller to procure a carriage contract, so an FCA recital in an invoice does not necessarily represent that the goods were shipped from Sweden.
And even if the goods were shipped from Sweden, what would prohibit their shipment to Frankfurt, where the seller procured an AWB permitted by the LC.
If anyone wishes to persuade me otherwise, it would help to explain how a refusal notice would describe the claimed inconsistency ("The invoice and AWB are inconsistent, in that ....").
Regards, Jim Barnes