Example FYBR Exporting Doctrine
Sample FYBR-IX Page 121
Acting on behalf of a "Disclosed Principal", is not an issue for most intermediaries, as most of us will never obtain a mandate ship or be employed by a Supplier as their official agent, both such positions are not a preferred application of the Independent trader, as such positions are restrictive. The Independent "Buyer/Seller" works from the position as "Acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal".
In this position the Supplier up to documentary delivery is specifically obligated to PIA. In regards to possession of the goods, the Supplier is indirectly obligated to the End Buyer.
Such obligations as offered to PIA are in effect transferred from the Supplier to the End Buyers, often such matters apply where disputes relating to warranty and claims being made where defective goods have been physically delivered into the possession of the End Buyer. It does not matter who pays for such goods, the said goods must arrive in the condition as purchased or the Supplier has to provide remedy of such as obligated by the Warranty applied on the goods as defined accordingly on the sales contract.
The Supplier is doing business with PIA who is acting on behalf of an Undisclosed principal, is already assumed by the Supplier at the time when PIA and the Supplier finalise contracting terms, or even when PIA has asked for a quote of such goods with the issuance of an “Procurement offer”. PIA who lives in one country, attempting to ship goods to a person in another country already gives clear inference that PIA is not an end user of the goods being sought. Other matters at contracting will also identify PIA has having very limited capacity and a small narrow playing field in being able to sign a contract as being formally accepted.
Where PIA actually controls the deal as "Buyer/Seller" when reselling the goods, PIA in turn is being dictated terms and conditions as offered by the Supplier. PIA can only accept Supplier’s terms and conditions as they prevail to suit, and not to accommodate the personal needs of such a Supplier.
The need to accommodate the trading requirements of PIA, now clearly gives reason that such a restrictive process will prevent PIA from getting many products being offered from Suppliers, as contracting terms as offered by a Supplier on many occasions cannot effectively be traded upon by an intermediary.
The ability of the Intermediary to enforce changes to a Supplier’s contracting condition are imperative, something that most Internet intermediaries simply don't understand. This is where the letter to the Supplier as per our example plays a crucial albeit unseen role in effectively allowing an intermediary to eventually accept the contracting conditions of only some or very few Suppliers.
This is what we mean when we stipulate that goods must be secured first, not so much that PIA must acquire such goods directly from a genuine Supplier, but PIA must also have the ability to purchase such goods is a paramount edict attached when such goods are verified as being genuine. In effect the Buyer/Seller has the right to resell the goods secured once they prove that such goods are genuinely offered is one process, the ability to actually accept the Supplier’s contracting terms is another. Two independent processes apply within the sphere of one protocol, one is first needed to apply in being able to make a resell offer, the other is tested later when the offer and contract negotiating stage with the Supplier becomes apparent.
To give further insight to the said matter of securing supply, FTN Exporting on average from every 50 Suppliers who have produced the required offer or quote, only one may eventually get close in meeting the requirements needed to purchase such goods. This statement now adds further weight in defining that all those ambiguous offers being made on the Internet, whether genuine or not, may sometimes even pass the test in proving that a real Supplier is involved, but fails miserably in the test that allows such an Intermediary to be able to buy such goods later because the Supplier has applied harsh
In this position the Supplier up to documentary delivery is specifically obligated to PIA. In regards to possession of the goods, the Supplier is indirectly obligated to the End Buyer.
Such obligations as offered to PIA are in effect transferred from the Supplier to the End Buyers, often such matters apply where disputes relating to warranty and claims being made where defective goods have been physically delivered into the possession of the End Buyer. It does not matter who pays for such goods, the said goods must arrive in the condition as purchased or the Supplier has to provide remedy of such as obligated by the Warranty applied on the goods as defined accordingly on the sales contract.
The Supplier is doing business with PIA who is acting on behalf of an Undisclosed principal, is already assumed by the Supplier at the time when PIA and the Supplier finalise contracting terms, or even when PIA has asked for a quote of such goods with the issuance of an “Procurement offer”. PIA who lives in one country, attempting to ship goods to a person in another country already gives clear inference that PIA is not an end user of the goods being sought. Other matters at contracting will also identify PIA has having very limited capacity and a small narrow playing field in being able to sign a contract as being formally accepted.
Where PIA actually controls the deal as "Buyer/Seller" when reselling the goods, PIA in turn is being dictated terms and conditions as offered by the Supplier. PIA can only accept Supplier’s terms and conditions as they prevail to suit, and not to accommodate the personal needs of such a Supplier.
The need to accommodate the trading requirements of PIA, now clearly gives reason that such a restrictive process will prevent PIA from getting many products being offered from Suppliers, as contracting terms as offered by a Supplier on many occasions cannot effectively be traded upon by an intermediary.
The ability of the Intermediary to enforce changes to a Supplier’s contracting condition are imperative, something that most Internet intermediaries simply don't understand. This is where the letter to the Supplier as per our example plays a crucial albeit unseen role in effectively allowing an intermediary to eventually accept the contracting conditions of only some or very few Suppliers.
This is what we mean when we stipulate that goods must be secured first, not so much that PIA must acquire such goods directly from a genuine Supplier, but PIA must also have the ability to purchase such goods is a paramount edict attached when such goods are verified as being genuine. In effect the Buyer/Seller has the right to resell the goods secured once they prove that such goods are genuinely offered is one process, the ability to actually accept the Supplier’s contracting terms is another. Two independent processes apply within the sphere of one protocol, one is first needed to apply in being able to make a resell offer, the other is tested later when the offer and contract negotiating stage with the Supplier becomes apparent.
To give further insight to the said matter of securing supply, FTN Exporting on average from every 50 Suppliers who have produced the required offer or quote, only one may eventually get close in meeting the requirements needed to purchase such goods. This statement now adds further weight in defining that all those ambiguous offers being made on the Internet, whether genuine or not, may sometimes even pass the test in proving that a real Supplier is involved, but fails miserably in the test that allows such an Intermediary to be able to buy such goods later because the Supplier has applied harsh
