Who gets more benefit in a CIF contract? The buyer or seller

While doing the revision of CIF workshop one question struck my mind that who gets more benefit in a CIF contract is it the buyer or the seller?

As we all know by now that in a CIF contract, it is the obligation of the seller to ship the goods at the port of shipment specified in the contract at his own expenses and to insure the goods.CIF has been described as, ' the contract for the sale of goods to be performed by the delivery of the documents'.[1] This means that whenever the buyer receives the documents he is bound to pay the money to the seller whether he receives the goods or not(i.e the seller is getting immediate payment). On the other hand, having possession of the documents, the buyer gets the benefit of contractual claims against the carrier and insurers together with the property in the goods and the right to immediate possession from the carrier on arrival at the port of destination. .

However, the major problem arises when the buyer fails to accept the documents. In this scenario, the buyer is in breach of his fundamental obligations under the contract which, if accepted by the seller as a repudiation of the contract, relieves the seller of any further obligation to deliver the goods and enables him to sue the buyer for non- acceptance.[2] But there are options for the buyer. He must take delivery of the goods and then has the right under S 34 and 35 of Sale Of Goods Act 1979(SGA)   to inspect the goods and reject them if he can show that the goods did not conform when the seller shipped them. Moreover, upon lawfully rejecting the documents the buyer can recover damages for non-delivery of the goods under s 51 ,54 SGA 1979. There are several other examples to show that the buyer and seller is getting equal benefit.

Finally I came to a conclusion that CIF contract gives equal benefits to the buyer and the seller. At some point if the buyer gets a benefit, then on the other side seller will also receive a benefit. What is your thought?

---

[1] Per Bankes LJ, Arnhold Karberg v Blythe, Green, fourdain & Co[1915] 1 KB 495,510;  J Katalikawe, Law of International Trade( 5^th edn, OBP, London 2005)47,49.

[2] Gill v Duffus Berger

Katalikawe J, Law of International Trade (Oxford Bailey Press,London) (2005) 43