國際經濟法形考案例題

Ⅰ 求法律專業高手幫答國際經濟法案例分析題，題目如下。

我不專業~做著玩~跟你探討下~
1，火雞可以解除合同~（根本違約）專
只要在合同構屬成根本違約則可以解除合同，根本違約公約第二十五條：「一方當事人違反合同的結果，如使另一方當事人蒙受損害，以致於實際上剝奪了他根據合同規定有權期待得到的東西，即為根本違反合同，除非違反合同一方並不預知而且一個同等資格、通情達理的人處於相同情況中也沒有理由預知會發生這種結果。」
故第二種不是根本違約
2，承運人~原因：清潔提單的簽發責任~
3，b構成反要約~合同未成立

Ⅱ 國際經濟法案例分析題

1、紐約公司A向巴黎公司B采購一批物品，貨款結算方式為信用證，紐約花旗銀行2015年5月內4日開出一份信用證，編號為L/C3426。本容筆業務發票編號為95E03LC001，價值為10000.00美元，約定出票後30天付款，2015年5月13日B公司開具一張以紐約花旗銀行為付款人的遠期匯票。
（1）請根據以上內容製作一張匯票
（2）請以花旗銀行名義對這張匯票進行承兌。
（3）B公司將這張匯票背書轉讓給了法國的C公司，請幫助B公司做一個記名背書。

Ⅲ 國際經濟法案例分析求助！！

CIF術語的中譯名為成本加保險費加運費,CIF是屬於裝運交貨的術語，
按CIF術語成交，雖然由賣方安排貨物運輸和辦理貨運保險，但賣方並不承擔保證把貨送到約定目的港的義務，是指在裝運港當貨物越過船舷時賣方即完成交貨。

C&F：cost and freight, 指成本加運費，後面跟目的地港口名稱，是目的港交貨的術語，也就是說運費要算到目的港，責任也止到目的港。
（1）"運輸途中貨艙進水，有500箱茶葉受浸泡"貨物所受的損失應當由美國買方來承擔,美國買方向保險公司索賠.
（2）買方無權主張解除合同
（3）賣方從本案中可以獲取的教訓是:為了避免誤解,採用離岸價FOB（FREE ON BOARD），或加強員工培訓.

Ⅳ 國際經濟法案例分析題，考試要的，急求權威答案

第一題：9月10號的邀約沒有撤銷。A 與B之間的買賣鋼纜合同成立。
第二題：賣方對於所銷售貨物應該承擔知識產權擔保義務，如違反此義務，應承擔違約責任。

Ⅳ 國際經濟法案例分析（詳細點哦）

（1）本案適用《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》
（2）合同已經成立。
理由：根據《聯合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》第16條的規定，在要約已送達被要約人，即要約已經生效，但被要約人尚未表示接受之前這一段時間，只要要約人及時將撤銷通知送達被要約人，仍可將其要約撤銷。如一旦被要約人發出接受通知，則要約人無權撤銷該要約。在這個案例中，甲將撤銷通知送達被要約人乙的時候，被要約人乙已經發出接受通知了，因此合同已經成立。

Ⅵ 國際經濟法，案例分析：2009年，中國A公司與新加坡B公司簽訂了合同，B公司向A公司出口1000袋麵粉

CFR是指賣方必須在合同規定的裝運期內，在裝運港將貨物交至運往指定目的港的船上，負擔貨物的一切費用和貨物滅失或損壞的風險，並負責租船或訂艙，支付抵達目的港的正常運費。
1 收貨人無權向承運人索賠,該合同條件下,保險由賣方辦理;
2承運人只能依據保函向托運人索賠,因為保函托運人是出具給承運人的;
3保險公司不承擔賠付責任,水漬是在堆放而不是在運輸過程中產生的.

Ⅶ 國際經濟法的一道案例題

（1）有理，應支付。（2）可以，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
「天不想亮」你懂不懂啊？這是英國法判例上大名鼎鼎的薰劑案！
Carlill Vs. Carbolic smoke ball
The Full decision of the case
APPEAL from a decision of Hawkins, J.(2)

The defendants, who were the proprietors and vendors of a medical preparation called "The Carbolic Smoke Ball," inserted in the Pall Mall Gazette of November 13, 1891, and in other newspapers, the following advertisement: "100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. 1000 is deposited with the Alliance Bank, Regent Street, shewing our sincerity in the matter.

"During the last epidemic of influenza many thousand carbolic smoke balls were sold as preventives against this disease, and in no ascertained case was the disease contracted by those using the carbolic smoke ball.

"One carbolic smoke ball will last a family several months, making it the cheapest remedy in the world at the price, 10, post free. The ball can be refilled at a cost of 5 Address, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, 27, Princes Street, Hanover Square, London."

The plaintiff, a lady, on the faith of this advertisement, bought one of the balls at a chemist』s, and used it as directed, three times a day, from November 20, 1891, to January 17, 1892, when she was attacked by influenza. Hawkins, J., held that she was entitled to recover the 100 The defendants appealed.

Finlay, Q.C., and T. Terrell, for the defendants. The facts shew that there was no binding contract between the parties. The case is not like Williams v. Carwardine (4 B. Ad. 621), where the money was to become payable on the performance of certain acts by the plaintiff; here the plaintiff could not by any act of her own establish a claim, for, to establish her right to the money, it was necessary that she should be attacked by influenza - an event over which she had no control. The words express an intention, but do not amount to a promise: Week v. Tibold. 1 Roll. Abr. 6 (M.). The present case is similar to Harris v. Nickerson. Law Rep. 8 Q. B. 286. The advertisement is too vague to be the basis of a contract; there is no limit as to time, and no means of checking the use of the ball. Anyone who had influenza might come forward and depose that he had used the ball for a fortnight, and it would be impossible to disprove it. Guthing v. Lynn 2 B. Ad. 232 supports the view that the terms are too vague to make a contract, there being no limit as to time, a person might claim who took the influenza ten years after using the remedy. There is no consideration moving from the plaintiff: Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476. The present case differs from Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860, for there an overt act was done by the plaintiff on the faith of a statement by the defendants. In order to make a contract by fulfilment of a condition, there must either be a communication of intention to accept the offer, or there must be the performance of some overt act. The mere doing an act in private will not be enough. This principle was laid down by Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. The terms of the advertisement would enable a person who stole the balls to claim the reward, though his using them was no possible benefit to the defendants. At all events, the advertisement should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants. But, if there be a contract at all, it is a wagering contract, as being one where the liability depends on an event beyond the control of the parties, and which is therefore void under 8 9 Vict. c. 109. Or, if not, it is bad under 14 Geo. 3, c. 48, s. 2, as being a policy of insurance on the happening of an uncertain event, and not conforming with the provisions of that section.

Dickens, Q.C., and W. B. Allen, for the plaintiff. [THE COURT intimated that they required no argument as to the question whether the contract was a wager or a policy of insurance.] The advertisement clearly was an offer by the defendants; it was published that it might be read and acted on, and they cannot be heard to say that it was an empty boast, which they were under no obligation to fulfil. The offer was ly accepted. An advertisement was addressed to all the public - as soon as a person does the act mentioned, there is a contract with him. It is said that there must be a communication of the acceptance; but the language of Lord Blackburn, in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666, shews that merely doing the acts indicated is an acceptance of the proposal. It never was intended that a person proposing to use the smoke ball should go to the office and obtain a repetition of the statements in the advertisement. The defendants are endeavouring to introce words into the advertisement to the effect that the use of the preparation must be with their privity or under their superintendence. Where an offer is made to all the world, nothing can be imported beyond the fulfilment of the conditions. Notice before the event cannot be required; the advertisement is an offer made to any person who fulfils the condition, as is explained in Spencer v. Harding Law Rep. 5 C. P. 561. Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621 shews strongly that notice to the person making the offer is not necessary. The promise is to the person who does an act, not to the person who says he is going to do it and then does it. As to notice after the event, it could have no effect, and the present case is within the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 666. It is urged that the terms are too vague and uncertain to make a contract; but, as regards parties, there is no more uncertainty than in all other cases of this description. It is said, too, that the promise might apply to a person who stole any one of the balls. But it is clear that only a person who lawfully acquired the preparation could claim the benefit of the advertisement. It is also urged that the terms should be held to apply only to persons who bought directly from the defendants; but that is not the import of the words, and there is no reason for implying such a limitation, an increased sale being a benefit to the defendants, though effected through a middleman, and the use of the balls must be presumed to serve as an advertisement and increase the sale. As to the want of restriction as to time, there are several possible constructions of the terms; they may mean that, after you have used it for a fortnight, you will be safe so long as you go on using it, or that you will be safe ring the prevalence of the epidemic. Or the true view may be that a fortnight』s use will make a person safe for a reasonable time.

Then as to the consideration. In Gerhard v. Bates 2 E. B. 476, Lord Campbell never meant to say that if there was a direct invitation to take shares, and shares were taken on the faith of it, there was no consideration. The decision went on the form of the declaration, which did not state that the contract extended to future holders. The decision that there was no consideration was qualified by the words "as between these parties," the plaintiff not having alleged himself to be a member of the class to whom the promise was made.

Finlay, Q.C., in reply. There is no binding contract. The money is payable on a person』s taking influenza after having used the ball for a fortnight, and the language would apply just as well to a person who had used it for a fortnight before the advertisement as to a person who used it on the faith of the advertisement. The advertisement is merely an expression of intention to pay 100 to a person who fulfils two conditions; but it is not a request to do anything, and there is no more consideration in using the ball than in contracting the influenza. That a contract should be completed by a private act is against the language of Lord Blackburn in Brogden v. Metropolitan Ry. Co. 2 App. Cas. 692. The use of the ball at home stands on the same level as the writing a letter which is kept in the writer』s drawer. In Denton v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 5 E. B. 860 the fact was ascertained by a public, not a secret act. The respondent relies on Williams v. Carwardine 4 B. Ad. 621, and the other cases of that class; but there a service was done to the advertiser. Here no service to the defendants was requested, for it was no benefit to them that the balls should be used: their interest was only that they should be sold. Those cases also differ from the present in this important particular, that in them the service was one which could only be performed by a limited number of persons, so there was no difficulty in ascertaining with whom the contract was made. It is said the advertisement was not a legal contract, but a promise in honour, which, if the defendants had been approached in a proper way, they would have fulfilled. A request is as necessary in the case of an executed consideration as of an executory one:

Lampleigh v. Braithwait 1 Sm. L. C. 9th ed. pp. 153, 157, 159; and here there was no request. Then as to the want of limitation as to time, it is conceded that the defendants cannot have meant to contract without some limit, and three limitations have been suggested. The limitation "ring the prevalence of the epidemic" is inadmissible, for the advertisement applies to colds as well as influenza. The limitation "ring use" is excluded by the language "after having used." The third is, "within a reasonable time," and that is probably what was intended; but it cannot be deced from the words; so the fair result is that there was no legal contract at all.

看不懂？我給你大致講一下。法官是這么說的，雖然說廣告是對不特定人提出的，一般情況下屬於要約邀請（ITT），但是本案中，被告不僅將懸賞內容寫得十分具體，而且已經把1000英鎊存進銀行，充分顯示出它願意受到該廣告內容的約束（to be bound）,所以符合了要約的根本特徵，即受約束的意思表示。所以，本案中的廣告是一個要約。而原告通過購買並使用薰劑的行為作出了行為承諾。有要約，有承諾，這個合同就成立了。
英美法教材用這個案例來說明，要約不一定要向特定人發出，只要有明確的受約束的意思表示即可。
打字不易，如滿意，望採納。

Ⅷ 急！國際經濟法案例分析

1不可以，信用證的無因性和文義性
買賣合同無效，向B主張返還不當得利

Ⅸ 國際經濟法有哪些經典案例

一、國際經濟法的三個層次

私人之間跨國商事交易關系——跨國鋼材進出口合同——違約
政府與私人之間跨國經濟管制關系——美國政府保障措施——關稅
國家之間跨國經濟交往關系——GATT/WTO多邊世界貿易協定體系——保障措施條約

二、三個層次的法律問題
進出口當事人是否有效？是否是不是違約？出口方如何得到救濟？進口方如何抗辯？涉及哪些法律？
美國政府的保障措施決定是否符合其國內法？受到影響的國內國外當事人是否可以提出申訴？涉及哪些法律？
中國是否可以向美國提出質疑？是否能夠從國家間爭議角度解決？涉及哪些法律？

三、三個層次的法律解決

首先，看合同是否成立，涉及到中美合同法規則和國際合同公約，可以認定合同已經有效成立，那麼，進口方的行為就屬於違約，可以追究其違約責任，但是，進口方可以抗辯，主張美國政府行為構成情勢變更，這樣，就可能免責。

其次，美國政府採取進口保障措施是基於其1974年貿易法第201條款，其中規定外國進口導致美國相關產業受到嚴重損害或其威脅則有權進行調查，如果進口與損害之間存在因果關系，則可以由國際貿易委員會提出建議，由美國總統決定是否採取進口保障措施。因而，美國政府的做法是有國內法依據的。至於外國受到影響的私人當事人，根據美國法律，卻沒有申訴權，所以，無法從美國國內法尋求救濟。

Ⅹ 急求一下國際經濟法案例的答案 謝謝

案例一：
1、因為A公司是賣家，且以CIF價格成交，所以，應由A公司與承運人C訂立運輸合內同。容
2、應有A公司向保險公司投保並交納保險費用。
3、A公司的交貨地點在天津港。
4、貨物運輸的風險在天津港貨物越過船舷時起由賣方轉移給買方。
5、1,500公斤大米由於灌水滅火受損和拖船廠費用屬於共同海損。

案例二：
1、應由瑞士迪高穀物有限公司負責與承運人訂立運輸合同。由糧油公司負責投保海上貨物運輸保險。
2、糧油公司的貨物短量、變質等的損失應由保險公司承擔。因為糧油公司向保險公司投保了一切險和戰爭險，包括短量險，所以貨物短量、變質等的損失應由保險公司承擔。
3、本案中貨物的損失有208.941公噸的短量和發紅變質的貨物4,927.389公噸。糧油公司可以直接向保險公司索賠。
4、保險公司在賠付了糧油公司後，能取得代位權，即由此取得了對責任方追索的權力。
5、依據我國現行法律的規定，保險公司可以向承運人行使這一權利。