Question

哪位大神帮忙翻译一下

CIF terms or CIP terms
In September 2014, a British trading company ( the importer) and a Chinese Hunan Province Import and Export Corporation (the exporter) entered into a contract to purchase a number of glassware under the price conditions of CIF London, payment terms of irrevocable letter of credit and the exporter had to provide an effective bill of lading and other documents. Then the exporter, with a transport company in Qindao, China (the carrier) signed a contract to transportation. In early December the exporter loaded the consignments on trucks sent by the carrier. During the process of transportation an accident occurred due to the driver’s fault and therefore the consignments failed to be shipped on the shipment date stipulated by the letter of credit. On receiving the notice of the accident, the exporter instantly negotiate with the importer making a request of extending the valid period of the L/C ten days, simultaneously the exporter formed the importer in good faith that two boxes of glassware might be damaged. The British importer replied that they agreed an extension, but demanded that the price of goods should be cut down by 8%. the exporter argued that the two boxes of glassware could be sold with 3% price cut, but the remaining goods were not damaged and therefore could not be sold at a cut price. However, the importer insisted that the price should be cut down. Eventually the exporter made a concession that the four boxes of damaged goods would be sold at a rate by 3% off and the remaining 1% off, which leads to a total losses (including the price, interest and other related losses) of USD100,000.
Afterwards, the exporter, as the consignor, lodged a claim for losses against the carrier. In this regard, the carrier agreed to bear the storage costs and the losses of four boxes of damaged goods; but pay only 50% of the interest loss on the grounds that they were only partially accountable, saying that the losses were mainly due to the delay of modifying the documents by the exporter with importer, so they would not reimburse the losses of the price. They also believed that this was due to the agreement which was signed unilaterally by the export and import side and had nothing to do with them. The exporter thought that the losses of the price and interest were due to the carrier’s fault, insisting on their full compensation. 3 months later, with the consultation, the carrier eventually paid the compensation for all the losses amounting of USD35,000. The actual loss of the exporter was USD65,000.
Q: What can we learn from the case?

Answer 1

CIF条件或CIP条款

2014年9月，英国贸易公司（进口商）和中国湖南省进出口公司（出口商）签订了一份合同，伦敦到岸价格条件下的购买一批玻璃器皿，不可撤销的信用证，出口商支付条款所提供的提单和其他单据的有效票据。然后，出口商，在青岛运输公司，中国（承运人）签订合同，运输。十二月初，出口商将货物装上了由承运人发出的卡车。在运输过程中，由于驾驶员的过失而发生事故，因此货物未能在信用证规定的装运日期装船。接到事故通知后，出口商立即与进口商协商，要求延长信用证有效期十天，同时出口商真诚地将两箱玻璃器皿损坏。英国进口商答复说他们同意延期，但要求将货物的价格削减8%。出口商辩称，这两箱玻璃器皿可以以3%的价格出售，但其余的货物没有损坏，因此不能以较低的价格出售。然而，进口商坚持降价。最终出口商作出了让步，受损的货物四箱将出售在率3%，剩下的1%，导致的总损失（包括价格、利息及其他相关损失的usd100000）。

后来，出口商作为发货人就承运人提出的损失提出索赔。对此，承运人同意承担仓储费用和四箱受损货物的损失；但只交50%，他们只有部分责任为由利益的损失，说损失主要是由于由进口商出口商修改文件的延迟，所以他们不会补偿价格的损失。他们还认为这是由于进出口双方单方面签署的协议，与他们无关。出口商认为，损失的价格和利息是由于承运人的过错，坚持他们的全额赔偿。3个月后，与协商，承运人最终支付所有损失的赔偿金额usd35000。出口方的实际损失usd65000。

问：我们能从案例中学到什么？