谢谢这位朋友的问题！
这里也是先从大原则开始讲起，就是普通法将履行合约的时间视为是合约的核心之一（performance time is essence of the contract）。所以一有违反，就会令对方有权解除合约。这方面的权威先例是英国贵族院的Bunge Corp v. Tradax Export SA (1981) 1 WLR 711。
在FOB买卖，如果合约没有规定的话，什么时候派船与付运是属于买方的选择。而卖方也有责任去把货物在付运期内装在指定的船舶。但在实践中，这会对卖方不方便，怕不知道什么时候买方会派船而需要一早就备妥货物装船，否则会至少要面对滞期费或滞期损失的损失。所以在FOB买卖合约，通常有好像你问题中的一些帮助衔接的条文，其中必须在10天前知道船舶。如果买方违反的话，这是对条件条文的违反，卖方会有一个机会可以选择去终断合约。你的问题最好就介绍Bunge Corp v. Tradax Export SA 先例，因为它有非常接近的案情。该案也是涉及一个FOB买卖，合约中有一条“15 days pre-advice of readiness of steamer”。买方给的通知是迟了5天，贵族院判卖方可以终断合约。这方面可以去节录《Benjamin on Sale of Goods》2010年第8版之20-035段所说：“In Bunge Corp v. Tradax Export SA an fob contract provided for shipment in June at a US Gulf port. The time for shipment was at the buyers' option, while the sellers had the option as to the port of shipment. The contract further provided were to give 15 days pre-advice of readiness of steamer, ... The House of Lords held that the buyers' notice had to be given at least 15 days before the last day on which the sellers had to begin to load if they were to be able to complete loading by the end of the shipment period at the rate of 2,000 tons per day. The actual notice given by the buyers fell 5 days short of this requirement and it was furhter held that the sellers were on this ground justified in rescinding the contract. They did not have to show that the delay caused them serious or any prejudice; for the term specifying the lenghth of the notice to be given by the buyers was a condition. ... .”。
表明看来你们的情况并不妙，但如果卖方迟迟不予确认，这里会涉及了弃权的问题，因为无辜方在破坏条件条文下可以去选择不终断合约，而只索赔金钱上的损失。而其中会造成弃权的就是无辜方过来合理时间不去选择终断合约。这种可能是取巧的行为（例如卖方想看准了市场行情才决定终断与否，但一直犹豫不决）。我由于不知道你的具体案情，所以没办法说的准什么是合理时间与是否构成弃权。例如，是否你在第8天找到的指定船舶现在已经是失去了？如果是你不妨尝试去向卖方投诉因为他迟迟不确认，结果导致subject fail，但买方会继续去找其他适合的船舶并尽快作出指定，这可以去看看卖方怎么样去反应。如果卖方说是终断合约，你可以尝试一下他弃权的争议，就是他太晚才作出决定。
在此一提的是，杨大明律师目前在写一本非常全面的《国际货物买卖》，希望能够在今年年中的时候由法律出版社出版，书中也有针对你所提的问题。
杨良宜/司嘉 |
发表于 2011-2-13 18:39
|