
Ruaridh Guy Partner
ICC Incoterms 2020
The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) has announced the publication of Incoterms 2020. This is the first update to Incoterms since they were last revised in 2010. The new rules become effective from 1 January 2020.
Incoterms detail the obligations of the parties as well as the allocation of risk and cost in a trade contracted on three-letter trade terms (such as CIF and FOB). Incoterms are distinct from the meaning of the same three-letter trade terms at common law, and Incoterms will only apply if they are incorporated into the contract (usually by reference).
The revisions to the rules have been produced by the ICC Drafting Group, which was made up of eight members from Australia, China, EU member states, Turkey, and the USA.
Incoterms 2020 contain six significant changes from Incoterms 2010:
A further change which runs throughout the document is purely cosmetic. The ICC has attempted to make the rules clearer than ever, with introductory and explanatory notes as well as changes in the order and layout of the rules. The motivation behind this change is apparently to encourage users to employ the most appropriate trade term for their particular trade, in particular to discourage the use of maritime terms for non-maritime trade.
Overall, the changes to the terms are more conservative than some predicted, and there are a few notable absences in the list of changes. There had been rumours that the DPP rule would be split into two terms, and that the FAS term would be removed entirely. There had also been suggestions of the introduction of a new “Cost and Insurance” term (“CNI”). In the event, these changes have not materialised.
We would be very pleased to discuss these changes and how they may affect your business in more detail. To arrange such a discussion or for any further information please contact the undersigned, or your usual Ince contact.
This article was co-authored by Keith Rowbory, Second year trainee solicitor at Ince.
18-02-2022 / Commodities & Trade
Addax Energy S.A. v. Petro Trade Inc. [2022] EWHC 237 (Comm) In a dispute arising out of the supply of petroleum products, the English Court has dismissed a challenge to its jurisdiction, finding that the claimant supplier had a good arguable case that an English jurisdiction clause was incorporated into an alleged oral agreement by way of course of dealing. In doing so, the Court confirmed that the evidence required to establish a course of dealing need not be extensive or consistent to meet the relevant legal test.
18-02-2022 / Commodities & Trade, Maritime
In a recent ruling, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) was asked to consider the interpretation of Article 5 of EC Regulation No. 2771/96 of 22 November 1996 (commonly referred to as the “Blocking Regulation”) in relation to the termination, by a German telecoms company, of a contract with a bank subject to US sanctions.
12-01-2022 / Commodities & Trade
This commodities dispute highlights the importance of drafting a notice of arbitration carefully to ensure that it covers all the disputes that are intended to be referred to arbitration.
04-08-2021 / Commodities & Trade
PBO v. DONPRO & others [2021] EWHC 1951 (Comm)
24-06-2021 / Commodities & Trade
BP Oil International Limited v. (1) Vega Petroleum Limited & (2) Dover Investments Limited [2021] EWHC 1364 (Comm)
01-03-2021 / Commodities & Trade
Black Sea Commodities Ltd v. Lemarc Agromond Pte Ltd [2021] EWHC 287 (Comm)