Thank you Blue swims.
I had not seen this previously. Before my time.
CFR (Cost and Freight) deals to some extent with the issues in my earlier post.
For the benefit of other readers, and assuming that a standard CFR contract is being used:
1. VMS's responsibility is to arrange and pay for the transportation to the named port of destination. However the buyer assumes the risk for the cargo once the ore is placed on-board at Burnie. .
2. As with FOB, the standard terms are silent as to when the payment is to be made (before shipment, immediately after shipment, thirty days after shipment, half now half later, at the halfway point of the journey, or whatever) or how it is to be paid (prepayment, against an email of copy documents, on presentation of documents to a bank under a letter of credit, cleared funds into a nominated account, or other arrangement). These matters should be specified in the contract.
3. Unlike FOB, the standard terms are also silent as to when the title to the ore passes. Ownership is of course different to risk. Consequently the time for/event of transfer of title should be statedseparately, and occurs when the parties wish it to occur. A statement as to transfer of title is usually included in the body of the contract and commercial invoice.
Because VMS needs to arrange transport, perhaps the agitating posters do have a very minor point. However the other matters I raised concerning the prudence that might be exercised by the buyer concerning the initial shipments still are apt, in my view..
Rather than constantly interrogating, or barking orders at, the BOD and management, if these posters feel so strongly about the quality (or lack) of leadership should they not nominate for appointment as directors at the next AGM citing their stated positions regarding perceived deficiencies of the present management? No, probably that's not their agenda.
Expand
