国际货物买卖.pptVIP

Pestana v. Karinol Corp. This is an action for damages based on a contract for the sale of goods. The defendant seller and others prevailed in this action after a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. The plaintiff buyer appeals. The central issue presented for review is whether a contract for the sale of goods, which stipulates the place where the goods sold are to be sent by carrier but contains (a) no explicit provisions allocating the risk of loss while the goods are in the possession of the carrier and (b) no delivery terms such as F. O. B. place of destination, is a shipment contract or a destination contract under the Uniform Commercial Code. We hold that such a contract, without more, constitutes a shipment contract wherein the risk of loss passes to the buyer when the seller duly delivers the goods to the carrier under a reasonable contract of carriage for shipment to the buyer. Accordingly, we affirm. The critical facts of this case are substantially undisputed. On March 4, 1975, Nahim Amar B. (the plaintiff Pedro P. Pestana’s decedent herein) who was a resident of Mexico entered into a contract（缔约） through his authorized representative with the Karinol Corporation (the defendant herein) which is an exporting company licensed to do business in Florida and operating out of Miami. The terms of this contract were embodied in a one page invoice written in Spanish and prepared by the defendant Karinol. By the terms of this contract, the plaintiff’s Amar agreed to purchase 64 electronic watches from the defendant Karinol for $6,006. A notation was printed at the bottom of the contract which, translated into English, reads as follows:” please send the merchandise in cardboard boxes duly strapped with metal bands via(经由，通过) air parcel post to Chetumal. Documents to Banco de Commercio De Quintano Roo S. A.” There were no provisions in the contract which specifically allocated the risk of loss on the goods so