Incoterms

This overview is a guide to the Banking & Finance content within the Incoterms subtopic within the trade and commodity finance topic, with links to the appropriate materials.

What are Incoterms and what is their origin?

Incoterms—an abbreviation of 'International Commercial Terms'—are a set of globally recognised terms and conditions used in international, and sometimes domestic, contracts for the sale and purchase of goods. They comprise a set of 11 three letter acronyms/abbreviations each representing a different set of provisions dealing with the allocation of duties, costs and risks in a sale and purchase contract. The intention of Incoterms is to achieve a consistency of understanding and interpretation of contractual terms, particularly where contracts involve multiple legal jurisdictions.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) publishes a set of rules for the interpretation of Incoterms explaining the meaning of each of the terms. These rules were first published in 1936 and are updated periodically to reflect changes in trade practices.

The ICC released Incoterms 2020 in September 2019 (see: LNB News 10/09/2019 69). Incoterms 2020 replaced the 2010 version of the rules with effect from

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Banking & Finance News

High Court clarifies position of sole directors under Model Articles and the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and in-court appointment of administrators (Re KRF Services (UK) Ltd and others)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This High Court case (which addresses two important issues in UK company law and sanctions regulations) will be of interest to insolvency practitioners, corporate and restructuring lawyers, sanctions lawyers, and businesses and individuals which are affected by sanctions. Firstly, it clarifies the position of sole directors under the Model Articles for private limited companies. The court ruled that a sole director can validly pass board resolutions and bind the company, regardless of whether they have always been the sole director or were previously part of a multi-member board. This interpretation resolves conflicts between Article 7(2) and Article 11(2) of the Model Articles, with the court favouring Article 7(2)'s provisions. Secondly, the case examines the interaction between UK sanctions regulations and the in-court appointment of administrators. The court determined that making an administration application and order does not breach asset-freezing sanctions, even when the company is designated or controlled by a sanctioned person. While an Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) license is typically required for administrators to act, the court retains discretion to make immediate appointments in urgent situations. Written by Joshua Ray and Duncan Henderson, partners at CANDEY, which acted for the First and Second Applicants on this matter.

View Banking & Finance by content type :

Popular documents