Charging the debt from the Buyer in relation to non-payment under CAD terms and under the issued Bill of Exchange

28 февраля 2017 г.: ru 45 en 327 февраля 2017 г.: ru 7 en 523 февраля 2017 г.: ru 7 en 1 всего: 127 21.02.17

The Client – foreign trader concluded commercial contract on grain product supply in containers under CFR terms, the Turkish port.

The Parties agreed that the Seller shall pay for the goods not later than 3 days after receiving the arranged set of original documents by the Buyer’s Bank (cash against documents – CAD).

In course of performance of his assumed obligations, the Seller supplied the goods in Turkey and submitted the documents on goods by banking channels to the Buyer’s bank. The transfer of the documents was made with Collection of Payment issued under ICC URC 522.

But payment was not made within the term set forth in the Contract. Moreover, due to financial problems and the risk of container idle stay at the port of destination. The Buyer applied to the Seller asking to provide with instructions  on issuing the full set of documents without payment but against Bill of Exchange. In accordance with Bill of Exchange, the Buyer guaranteed payment for goods within 15 days after submission of this document.

The Seller accepted the Buyer’s concessions. The Collection of Payment was modified. The Buyer’s Bank issued original documents against the signed Bill of Exchange. The goods were accepted at the port of destination, cleared for import and resold.

The Seller required the Buyer to pay for accepted and resold goods on the grounds of Bill of Exchange. But payment was not made within the prescribed 15 days. The Bill of Exchange was also submitted by SWIFT banking channels.

For several months neither the Buyer nor the Buyer’s Bank replied to the Seller’s numerous letters.

The Seller filed a request for the defense of their interests to Interlegal.

Having proceeded the case, Interlegal experts found out that the Seller made several mistakes while modifying payment procedure and terms. Moreover, the Bill of Exchange signed by the Parties was issued out of the scope of ICC URC 522. Banks were conventionally engaged in payment guarantees. The terms for initiation of arbitration proceedings were omitted.

Settlement of the problem required for the complex approach.

Due to the prepared plan of actions and legal opinion, Interlegal lawyers managed: to initiate GAFTA arbitration proceedings; to involve the engaged Banks into negotiations both between each other and with the Parties to the Contract; to initiate direct negotiations with the Buyer by reference of the Interlegal Turkish lawyers;

Another problem was that neither the Buyer nor the Buyer’s Bank provided any written comments or rejections. But despite such principal position, Interlegal lawyers fixed mandatory agreements between the Parties upon debt recovery by installments within the fixed terms by means of SWIFT system.

Such complex and competent actions resulted in payment for the goods supplied under the Contract.


Interlegal lawyer Olena Ptashenchuk under general supervision of partner Natalya Myroshnychenko led the case.

  • Interlegal lawyers won the case in London2020.12.21

    The Client – Ukrainian company engaged in design and engineering works for foreign firms – applied to Interlegal, due to non-payment by the...

    show more
  • Procedural delay: it shan’t pass!2020.12.10

    Interlegal lawyers again defended interests of their client - thyssenkrupp Materials Trading GmbH under longstanding case proceedings upon r...

    show more
  • Ship release in Belgium2020.12.14

    The client – owner of the vessel detained by Port State Control at one of the Belgian Ports, applied to Interlegal for vessel release as soo...

    show more
  • Case legal support: cargo loss due to accident2020.11.30

    Interlegal lawyers succeeded in case settlement upon reimbursement of lose cargo value, due to accident. In the process of fertilizer car...

    show more
  • Interlegal lawyers consulted the client upon legal effects of the Law No. 466 for its business2020.11.26

    A regular client applied to Interlegal for legal advice upon legal effects due to entry into force of amendments to the Tax Code of Ukraine,...

    show more
  • Interlegal lawyers applied to the State Regulatory Service of Ukraine for non-admission to adopt a Draft Order of the Ministry of Infrastructure2020.11.18

    On 12.10.2020, a Draft Order of the Ministry of Infrastructure of Ukraine “On Approval of the Procedure for Fixing a Prohibition to Operate...

    show more
  • Shipowners may refund costs, paid unlawfully to USPA2020.11.05

    Decision of the Antitrust Committee of Ukraine (case No. 910/1106/20) entered into legal force, and now shipowners are free to defend th...

    show more
  • Winning a Lost Case: When Negotiations are Crucial2020.11.04

    In fact, no one will give an obvious answer to the above question; however, the golden rule Strongest are Lucky has not been canceled. In...

    show more
  • Interlegal law team settled the dispute upon demurrage at the port of discharge2020.11.04

    Interlegal teem succeeded in pretrial settlement of the Buyer’s claim against the Seller upon demurrage at the port of discharge. The Cli...

    show more
  • Interlegal lawyers provided legal support of yacht sale & purchase at 1.5 million EUR2020.10.29

    Interlegal regular client filed a request for legal support of yacht (30 meters long) sale & purchase amounting to 1.5 million EUR. I...

    show more