Law of International Trade Element

Sample Question

Stephan agrees to sell 50,000 litres of high quality olive oil from his farm in Spain to Bruno.  The terms of the sales contract are CIF Bristol. Shipment is to be made in January 2012. The terms of the contract expressly say that English law is to apply.
Stephan arranges for the shipment of the goods from Spain to Bristol. Stephan sends a fax to Bruno saying that the name of the vessel is ‘La Bonne Chance’.  In fact the olive oil is loaded on 12th January 2012 aboard The Good Luck.  The bill of lading, correctly names the vessel as The Good Luck. But the bill of lading incorrectly gives 17th January 2012 as the date of shipment.
Bruno takes delivery of the olive oil when it arrives in Bristol but discovers that it is not “high quality”.  By the time that the shipping documents arrive the price of olive oil has gone down. Bruno then discovers that the true date of shipment was 17 January 2012

Bruno would like to reject the olive oil – advise him
Initial Comments
I think bullet points are a good way to tackle an assessment like this because law problems  (unlike economics essays) usually consist of  a large number of comparatively short points – the skill is spotting the points and explaining them quickly.
Obviously you don’t need to use bullet points if you don’t want to.
Almost all of the material in this answer comes from the Unit handbook or from the sale of goods act which is available on line, only footnotes  13 & 14 come from a text book. The key to this exercise is being able to analyze the problem – spot the points of law and  demonstrate how the law would deal with them.
This is what my essay plan would look like. Notice I do not always write in complete sentences – this is fine so long as the meaning is clear.

Sample plan
•    Breach of a condition entitles the innocent party to repudiate the contract so he has no further duties. If Bruno is lawfully to reject the oil he must show Stephan has committed a breach of a condition.
•    Buyer has a duty to pay as stipulated in the contract and accept the goods if they are of satisfactory quality and if they and the documents correspond with their description in the contract . Breaches of the duty in relation to quality and correspondence are breaches of condition so Bruno must show Stephan has broken either of these duties
•    Bruno has possession of the goods.  Carrier should not release the goods without a bill of lading being tendered by the person claiming them.  Probably Bruno has accepted the bill of lading from Stephan and used it to obtain possession.
•    The fact that Bruno may have accepted the documents does not prevent him from rejecting the goods.
•    Unless agreed otherwise in CIF, payment is against conforming documents   – the seller has delivered both the goods (on loading) and the documents . So Bruno has probably paid Stephan. If he lawfully repudiates the contract he can recover his payment plus interest plus costs from Stephan

•    Dealing with the goods
•    If ‘good quality’ is part of the description of the goods Bruno can reject the goods as they do not conform to the contractual description.
•    ‘Good quality’ is probably  not to be part of the description – the words do not identify the goods  – they seem to describe its quality. Compare Bowes v Shand   – date of shipment part of description because the date identified the goods with Rearden & Smith Lines v Hansen Tangen   – place of manufacture not part of the description. Compare though  Arcos v Ronaason  – dimension of goods a description (seems to be a quality of the goods).
•    If the words are not part of the description, Bruno can seek to reject the goods if they are not of ‘satisfactory quality’.
•    [G]oods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.’
•    Unclear whether goods unsatisfactory.
•    Dealing with the documents
•    Cif seller owes duty that Bol is accurate – implied term is a contractual condition.
•    If Bruno has accepted the bill he must rely on his remedy of damages.
•    Cannot claim if bol reveals true shipping date elsewhere in its text.
•    Kwei Tek distinguishable because true shipping date was outside shipping period – here B would have had to accept the bill even if it was accurate – so suffers no loss through S’s breach.
•    Cif contract does not require seller to tell buyer the name of the ship – so change of ship irrelevant (cf Fob).
•    Conclusion
•    If B has accepted the goods he loses right to reject them– consider what amounts to loss of right to reject  especially retention for a reasonable time without rejecting   and the right of examination.
•    But if B has accepted the goods he can still repudiate the contract if he has not accepted the documents and they are non conforming.

Bibliography
[Include here any books you have considered. You don’t need to put the Unit Handbook here but any other material you referred to should be included. I only used on book so I’ll put that in my bibliography. Don’t forget the bibliography does not count towards the word limit.]
Jason Chuah, The Law of International Trade (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2009).