FOB

The FOB clause is not taken as a term defining the means of delivery. It is considered as a base for the calculation of the products in practice. FOB contract is a flexible implement which permits parties to arrange different conditions as they are suitable. For instance, the seller may offer to arrange insurance for the buyer; or the buyer may concur to assist with the duty of transporting the products over the ship’s rail. A case of the classic FOB is here. In Wimble, Sons & Co. v Rosenberg & Sons, the buyer’s obligation is to appoint the ship, and the seller’s to load the products on board for the buyer and obtain a bill of lading in the trade. In the case, the seller is directly a party to the contract of carriage till he gets a bill of lading in the buyer’s name. There are issues across a range of FOB contracts. What parties agreed may be different from what they indeed did, for instance the fact that a FOB seller signs a carriage contract as principal does not essentially intend that he agreed to do so. Yet the flexible FOB contract is limited. If the parties have agreed FOB, the court will need strong proof which they have contracted to make an arrangement beyond the restrictions of the FOB term. If a term is stated, they would determine to which of two incoherent terms they affect. Using an FOB term makes an assumption about what the parties contracted in the lack of other proof. Thus, it should be differentiated between what is included within the FOB notion and what the FOB term implies when there is no other proof about what the parties contracted.