Is the freight forwarder considered the first carrier?

Disclaimer

Our expert's opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC or the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice. No legal imputation should be attached to any of the contents here and no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements or opinions caused by negligence or otherwise. Our expert's opinions are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our opinions, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
No opinions or comments can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.

Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 24, 2001 at 9:59:26 PM
Vin,
AN UNSPECIFIC ENQUIRY MAY LEAD TO WIDE SCOPE VIEWS
Long time no see!
Your opinions are right for most goods that are "specific goods". Since the enquirer has never told us what exactly the goods are, we try to cover the scope of the query more widely by providing our opinions on other forms of goods too. And we have shared our "hydrocarbon" liquid goods (a kind of "unascertained goods") story to convince members that this sort of problems does not necessarily be so simple and can all be easily solved by simply quoting a page in the Incoterms 2000 guidebook.
As we have said before and say it again here: "Otherwise consultants would all lose their jobs!"
INCOTERMS MAY NOT APPLY IN ...

Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 24, 2001 at 3:24:47 PM
Dear Hatem,
PRESSURE FROM ALL FRONTS
My wife, Patricia, has been advising, if not complaining, to me time and again that I should not have spent so much of my time in finding our rice and noodles in the Discussion Fourm. Now I apprecaite from my heart that you have realised this heavy opportunity cost.
To be frank, other consultants are also advising us not to release so much of our professional secrets, experiences and knowledge gained in the hard way free of charge over the internet, both for our articles and hightlights of dispute cases resolved in our website. Now also in in the Discussion Forum.
They even give us an example. If a cat shares with a mouse her secret of how to run faster, the cat may one day die of starvation.
WE BELIEVE IN SHARING THAT MAKES THE WORLD GO ROUND
We do not believe this. If you have a bucket of water and the others have empty buckets, you never try to find a new source of water as you may grow complacent. If you share the water with others, you know you are saving lives and also not better than anyone else, then you will rise up early in the morning to find new wells. And everybody has more water and more chance to survive. This is what I learn from Buddhism teachings.
We keep sharing for the last thirty years with participants in our workshops around the world. That is why now we know so many DC related technologies. By giving secrets out, we have no more secrets left and we have to find new secrets.
The bonus is the thanks from people like ...

Posted in DC-Pro on Sep 23, 2001 at 6:24:47 AM
Dear Mr. Pavel Andrle,
YOUR OPINIONS ARE INCORRECT IF WE GO DEEPER INTO THE PREMISE THAT INCOTERMS ARE BASED
Your opinions appear to be correct on the surface level but are in fact incorrect if we go deeper into the premise under which the Incoterms, whether 1980, 1990 or 2000, determine passing of risk between a seller and a buyer.
As an experienced consultant dealing with international trade disputes for ten years, we understand the problems and the more complex issues unfolded by this query in more depth than your purely a banker's view. In fact we are a Canada's representative in drafting the Incoterms 2000 and we know what the Incoterms are at a deeper or an insider's level.
INCOTERMS ARE BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT GOODS ARE "CLEARLY SET ASIDE OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED" BY A SELLER
Now let us tell you what you have gone wrong...

Posted in DC-Pro on Aug 30, 2001 at 5:18:25 PM
INCOTERMS V. OWNERSHIP
Let us share with members how ownership would have affected Incoterms in a thought provoking story. This is NOT "an exceptional case". There are too many such cases. We will tell more when these issues are brought up in the future queries. Now better stick to the present issue here for the time being.
Our client, a buyer, purchased goods on CIF Hong Kong China Incoterms and the goods sustained damages during the sea voyage. According to Incoterms, the risk should have shifted from the seller to the buyer once the goods had crossed the ship's side. The buyer had to bear the risk of the damages.
If life (or deciding everything by Incoterms) were so simple, we trade disputes consultants would have no business.
However, when we looked at the invoice, we found a protective clause, probably suggested by the seller's lawyer to protect his client from non-payment: "The title of the goods will be retained by the seller unless and until the goods have been fully paid for". And Bingo! ...

Posted in DC-Pro on Aug 30, 2001 at 1:55:28 AM
PROBLEMS ARE NEVER STRAIGHTFORWARD
Dear Mr. Andrle,
We cannot over-simplify an issue of stolen cargo by referring simply to the Incoterms for solution. From our experience, if we answer our clients like this, it is very risky. We have to find out whether ...

Posted in DC-Pro on May 5, 2001 at 12:37:23 AM
As a consultant resolving LC and charter party disputes, we have to say that the data given in this query is not adequate to warrant a good and responsible answer.
Our experience is that the more you know, the more difficult it is to answer a simple question, as there are many variables. And each variable/option may take you to a different answer. That is why the more years we are in practice, the less we can answer simple questions like this one.
"It all depends" ...

(416) 298-5881

(416) 292-5535