Question 1:
Compare and contrast the nation, the individual, and the corporation as entities
in and subject to international law.
Final answer:
Nations, individuals, and corporations all interact with international law, but in
different ways. Nations are sovereign entities, individuals can be held accountable for
human rights violations or war crimes, and corporations interact with international
laws mostly through regulations on their business operations.
Explanation:
The nation, the individual, and the corporation are three entities in international law,
each with their own rights and responsibilities. A nation, acting as a sovereign entity,
plays a major role in international law because it is seen as having the ultimate
authority within its borders. It is responsible for its actions on the international stage,
and is subject to sanctions and repercussions if it violates international law. An
individual can also be subject to international law, particularly in situations involving
human rights violations or war crimes. In such cases, an individual can be held
accountable in an international court. On the other hand, a corporation can be involved
in international law as a business entity. They are subject to laws pertaining to
international trade, cross-border transactions, and global labor standards, among other
things. Unlike nations and individuals, corporations primarily interact with
international law through regulations imposed on their business operations, rather than
direct accountability for actions. However, they can also be held accountable in cases
of violation of certain international laws, such as those against bribery or
environmental protection.
Question 2:
Choose a product and a country to which you wish to export that product.
Prepare an export plan, identifying in particular the factors that would need to
be addressed in order to ensure a successful venture.
Export Plan: Vietnamese Coffee to Germany
1. Product Overview
Vietnam is renowned for its coffee production, particularly Robusta coffee beans. The
plan involves exporting high-quality, ethically sourced Vietnamese coffee to
Germany, a country with a high coffee consumption rate and a growing market for
specialty coffee.
2. Market Analysis
Germany Coffee Market
● Consumption: Germany is one of the largest coffee consumers in Europe.
● Trends: Increasing demand for specialty and organic coffee.
● Competitors: Major coffee brands, local roasters, and other coffee-exporting
countries like Brazil and Colombia.
3. Target Market
● Demographics: Middle to upper-class consumers, environmentally conscious,
and coffee enthusiasts.
● Geographic Focus: Urban centers such as Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich
where coffee culture is vibrant.
4. Legal and Regulatory Factors
Export Regulations (Vietnam)
● Export Licenses: Obtain necessary export licenses from Vietnamese
authorities.
● Quality Standards: Ensure compliance with Vietnamese export quality
standards and certifications, such as ISO 9001.
Import Regulations (Germany)
● Customs Duties: Understand and calculate applicable tariffs and taxes on
coffee imports.
● EU Standards: Comply with EU regulations on food safety, labeling, and
packaging (e.g., Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to
consumers).
● Organic Certification: If marketing as organic, obtain EU organic
certification.
5. Logistics and Supply Chain
● Transportation: Choose reliable shipping options (sea or air freight) to ensure
timely delivery.
● Packaging: Use durable, eco-friendly packaging to preserve coffee quality and
appeal to environmentally conscious consumers.
● Warehousing: Secure warehousing in Germany for distribution efficiency.
6. Marketing and Sales Strategy
● Brand Positioning: Emphasize the unique origin, quality, and ethical sourcing
of Vietnamese coffee.
● Distribution Channels: Partner with local retailers, cafes, and online
platforms.
● Promotion: Use social media, coffee festivals, and collaborations with
influencers to build brand awareness.
7. Financial Plan
● Cost Analysis: Account for production, shipping, tariffs, marketing, and
distribution costs.
● Pricing Strategy: Competitive pricing to penetrate the market while ensuring
profitability.
● Funding: Explore financing options, such as export loans or grants from trade
organizations.
8. Risk Management
● Currency Fluctuation: Hedge against currency risk through forward contracts
or currency options.
● Market Risk: Conduct regular market research to stay abreast of consumer
preferences and competitor actions.
● Legal Risks: Stay updated on changes in export/import regulations and ensure
ongoing compliance.
9. Cultural Considerations
● Consumer Preferences: Adapt marketing messages to resonate with German
cultural values and preferences.
● Communication: Provide product information in German, highlighting the
authenticity and benefits of Vietnamese coffee.
10. Sustainability and Ethical Practices
● Sustainable Sourcing: Promote sustainable farming practices among
Vietnamese coffee growers.
● Fair Trade Certification: Obtain Fair Trade certification to appeal to ethically
conscious consumers in Germany.
11. Partnerships and Networking
● Trade Associations: Join organizations like the Vietnam Coffee and Cocoa
Association (VICOFA) and German Coffee Association for networking and
support.
● Local Distributors: Collaborate with established German distributors to
navigate the local market effectively.
12. Monitoring and Evaluation
● Performance Metrics: Track sales, market share, and customer feedback.
● Continuous Improvement: Regularly review and refine the export strategy
based on market trends and performance data.
Question 2:
What term from Incoterms 2000 would you recommend under each of these
scenarios?
A transaction wherein an American seller is to transport the goods by sea from the
port of Oakland, California to Vancouver, Canada and the Canadian buyer's sole
obligations are to arrange for import clearance and purchase insurance against loss
from the moment the goods cross the ship's rail.
A transaction wherein a Greek buyer seeks to impose all obligations on the French
seller, including export clearance, the cost of insurance, transportation of the goods by
sea from Marseille, France, and import clearance at Piraeus, Greece, the port of
destination.
A transaction wherein a Dutch seller wishes to limit its obligations to notification of
the American buyer that the goods are available for pickup at the seller's warehouse in
Antwerp, Netherlands.
A transaction wherein an American seller is to deliver the goods on board a ship in
New York and arrange for export clearance for ultimate shipment to Rio de Janiero
with the Brazilian buyer responsible for contracting with the carrier, the cost of
obtaining insurance and obtaining import clearance.
A transaction wherein a Canadian seller is to transport the goods by sea from Halifax,
arrange for export clearance, unload the goods at their final destination in Oslo,
Norway and make them available on the wharf while the buyer arranges for import
clearance in Norway.
A transaction wherein a Belgian seller is to deliver the goods to the wharf at the port
of Antwerp, provide a receipt evidencing such delivery and facilitate export clearance
with the Swedish buyer responsible for contracting with a carrier for their transport to
Stockholm and bearing all risk of loss from the moment the goods are placed
alongside the ship.
A transaction wherein a Mexican seller is to contract for motor carriage of the goods,
deliver the goods to another motor carrier for transport across the U.S. border, pay
unloading and loading costs, arrange for export clearance and obtain insurance on the
U.S. buyer's behalf for final delivery to Phoenix, Arizona.
1.American Seller to Transport Goods by Sea from Oakland to Vancouver
● Incoterm: CFR (Cost and Freight)
● Explanation: Under CFR, the American seller is responsible for the cost and
freight to the port of destination (Vancouver). The Canadian buyer is
responsible for import clearance and purchasing insurance against loss from the
moment the goods cross the ship's rail at the port of shipment.
2.Greek Buyer Imposes All Obligations on French Seller
● Incoterm: DDP (Delivered Duty Paid)
● Explanation: The French seller is responsible for all costs and risks involved
in delivering the goods to Piraeus, Greece, including export clearance,
insurance, transportation, and import clearance.
3.Dutch Seller Limiting Obligations to Notification of Pickup in Antwerp
● Incoterm: EXW (Ex Works)
● Explanation: Under EXW, the Dutch seller’s responsibility is limited to
making the goods available at their premises (warehouse in Antwerp). The
American buyer is responsible for all other transportation and associated costs
from this point.
4.American Seller to Deliver Goods on Board a Ship in New York
● Incoterm: FOB (Free On Board)
● Explanation: The American seller delivers the goods on board the ship at the
port of New York and arranges for export clearance. The Brazilian buyer is
responsible for contracting with the carrier, obtaining insurance, and handling
import clearance.
5.Canadian Seller Transporting Goods by Sea from Halifax to Oslo
● Incoterm: DDU (Delivered Duty Unpaid)
● Explanation: The Canadian seller is responsible for transporting the goods to
Oslo, Norway, unloading them on the wharf, and making them available for the
buyer. The buyer is responsible for import clearance and any import duties and
taxes.
A transaction wherein a Canadian seller is to transport the goods by sea from
Halifax, arrange for export clearance, unload the goods at their final destination
in Oslo, Norway, and make them available on the wharf while the buyer arranges
for import clearance in Norway.
● Recommended Incoterm: DAP (Delivered at Place)
● Reasoning: The Canadian seller is responsible for transportation to the
destination (Oslo) and unloading the goods, but the buyer is responsible for
import clearance.
6.Belgian Seller Delivering Goods to the Wharf at Antwerp
● Incoterm: FAS (Free Alongside Ship)
● Explanation: The Belgian seller delivers the goods alongside the ship at the
port of Antwerp, provides a receipt evidencing such delivery, and facilitates
export clearance. The Swedish buyer is responsible for contracting with a
carrier and bearing all risk and costs from this point.
7.Mexican Seller Contracting for Motor Carriage and Delivering to Phoenix
● Incoterm: DDU (Delivered Duty Unpaid)
● Explanation: The Mexican seller arranges for transportation, pays unloading
and loading costs, handles export clearance, and obtains insurance. The goods
are delivered to Phoenix, Arizona, and the U.S. buyer is responsible for import
clearance and any import duties.
Question 2:
Who will prevail in the following scenarios applying the CISG? Please provide a
short explanation for each of your answers.
Scenario 1
An attempt by an American buyer to introduce evidence of preliminary negotiations in
order to interpret a written contract in a breach of contract case against an Italian
seller.
Scenario 2
A claim by a German buyer against an American seller alleging the seller's failure to
perform an oral agreement relating to a sale of goods valued at U.S. $10,000.
Scenario 3
A claim of formation of a contract based upon a purported acceptance of an offer
mailed by a Chinese offeree but never received by the American offeror.
Scenario 4
An attempt by an American buyer to avoid paying a French seller for goods after
ignoring the French seller's request for additional time to perform the contract, which
goods were delivered six days after the date provided in the contract.
Scenario 5
An attempt by an American buyer to avoid payment for goods received from a French
seller based upon a letter providing that the goods were "deficient in quality."
Scenario 6
An attempt by an American consumer to sue a Chinese manufacturer for product
defects which resulted in his personal injury.
Scenario 1: Evidence of Preliminary Negotiations
Outcome: The American Buyer Prevails
Explanation: Under the CISG, Article 8 allows for the use of preliminary
negotiations to interpret a written contract and determine the intent of the parties. This
is consistent with the principle that the CISG takes into account all relevant
circumstances of the case, including negotiations, to interpret the contract. Therefore,
the American buyer can introduce evidence of preliminary negotiations in the breach
of contract case against the Italian seller.
Scenario 2: Oral Agreement for Sale of Goods
Outcome: The German Buyer Prevails
Explanation: The CISG does not require contracts for the sale of goods to be in
writing, as stated in Article 11. This means that oral agreements are valid and
enforceable under the CISG, irrespective of the value of the goods. Therefore, the
German buyer can bring a claim against the American seller for failing to perform the
oral agreement, assuming the German buyer can provide sufficient evidence of the
agreement and its terms.
Scenario 3: Acceptance Never Received
Outcome: The American Offeror Prevails
Explanation: Under Article 18(2) of the CISG, an acceptance of an offer becomes
effective only when it reaches the offeror. Since the purported acceptance from the
Chinese offeree was never received by the American offeror, the acceptance is not
effective, and no contract was formed. Therefore, the American offeror prevails as
there was no binding contract.
Scenario 4: Late Performance and Avoidance of Payment
Outcome: The French Seller Prevails
Explanation: Article 49 of the CISG allows a buyer to avoid the contract if the
seller’s failure to deliver constitutes a fundamental breach. However, if the French
seller requested additional time and the goods were delivered only six days late, this
delay is unlikely to be considered a fundamental breach under Article 25.
Additionally, Article 47 allows the seller to be granted additional time to perform.
Since the delay is minor and the request for additional time was ignored by the
American buyer, the French seller prevails.
Scenario 5: Quality Deficiency Claim
Outcome: The American Buyer Prevails
Explanation: According to Article 39(1) of the CISG, the buyer must notify the seller
of any lack of conformity within a reasonable time after discovery. The American
buyer’s letter stating the goods were "deficient in quality" serves as notice. If this
notice was given within a reasonable time, the American buyer has complied with the
requirement and can avoid payment for non-conforming goods. Therefore, the
American buyer prevails if the notice was timely.
Scenario 6: Consumer Claim for Personal Injury
Outcome: The Chinese Manufacturer Prevails
Explanation: The CISG, under Article 2(a), excludes sales of goods bought for
personal, family, or household use unless the seller knew or ought to have known that
the goods were for such use. Moreover, Article 5 specifically excludes claims for
death or personal injury caused by the goods. As the claim involves personal injury, it
falls outside the scope of the CISG. The American consumer must rely on domestic
law for such claims, not the CISG. Therefore, the Chinese manufacturer prevails
under the CISG.
