Interlegal experts managed to prevent the busted export deal
12 October, 2016
11
Interlegal Сlient, exporter, entered into a contract of sale and purchase of the lot of grain in the quantity of several hundred thousand metric tons under FOB terms of supply, Russian port.
The Parties agreed that the Seller shall supply the Goods, in full and in proper quality, to the Vessel nominated by the Buyer. The Goods shall be shipped at the Terminal agreed by the Parties.
However, before the commencement of the shipment period, the Terminal notified the Seller on the absence of any possibilities to conduct loading of the Goods within the contractual shipment period.
The Seller duly notified the Buyer on such rejection and proposed two alternative options, i.e. either to load the Goods at another terminal at the same port or to prolong the shipment period till the date when the agreed Terminal renews cargo-handling operations. At the same time, the Seller confirmed the acceptance of the Vessel nominated by the Buyer.
Having received confirmation on the Vessel’s acceptance and proposal to rearrange the place or period of shipment, the Buyer declared the Seller in default and cancelled unilaterally the Contract before the commencement of shipment period.
In his turn, the Seller collected the full scope of the Goods at the port of loading by that time. Within the shipment period the Seller obtained consent of the agreed Terminal on loading the Goods in compliance with the Contract. Despite the above, the Buyer still insisted on cancellation and considered that any contractual obligations between the Parties are absent. Thereby the Buyer rejected the whole lot of the Goods.
Interlegal experts conducted a complex analysis of the current situation and the Contract terms. The grounded legal position was developed for the Seller to proceed with negotiations with the Buyer. In addition the range of written notices was drafted.
Active engagement of Interlegal lawyers resulted in the compromise between the Parties. The contractual relationships were renewed and the Goods’ supply was rearranged on the new terms.
Interlegal lawyer Olena Ptashenchuk, under general supervision of the associated partner Natalia Myroshnychenko, led the case.
