Not free
Not free ( English carriage forward , abbreviation: C / F) is a franking and trade clause , according to which the seller or supplier has to bear the transport costs to the dispatch station (e.g. train station , port , airport , parcel shop , post office ). Contrast is carriage paid .
General
The trade and foreign trade between sellers and exporters on the one hand and buyers or importers on the other hand can smoothly work only if the delivery and payment terms standardized and provide generally accepted trade terms that the transfer of risk , the transport costs and the transport risk control. You must make it clear whether the seller / exporter or buyer / importer alone or both participate proportionally.
content
A prerequisite for agreeing the “freight collect” clause is a supply chain in which there are at least two carriers ( combined transport ). This is the case, for example, when the goods are brought from the factory to the station by a shipping agent ( pre-carriage ), from there by freight train to the destination station ( main carriage ) and finally transported to the buyer by a receiving carriage (on- carriage ).
The transport costs for the pre- and post- carriage are called cartage . In the case of the “not free” clause , the seller only pays the carriage for the first run (“Carriage I”), while the buyer has to bear the transport costs for the main run and the carriage for the onward carriage (“Carriage II”).
Legal issues
Such commercial clauses as “not free” fall under the “customs and traditions” of Section 346 of the German Commercial Code (HGB) , which only apply to commercial transactions between merchants . In the case of non-merchants (e.g. consumers ), such trade clauses are only applicable if they take part in trade like merchants and are familiar with these trade customs. If a consumer is involved as a contracting party , he does not have to accept it against him, but can request a precise explanation of the word. The word “not free” is incomprehensible to the objective recipient horizon of a sensible consumer and is considered an inappropriate disadvantage , which is ineffective according to § 307 Paragraph 1 BGB .
The “unfree” clause is not a binding trade clause; it only expresses that the statutory cost regulation of § 448 paragraph 1 BGB is not waived . Thereafter, the seller bears the costs of handing over the goods, the buyer the costs of acceptance and shipping of the goods to a location other than the place of performance .
In the case of “unfree”, the seller only assumes the transport risk until delivery to the first carrier . This does not affect the legal transfer of risk . Every further carrier must endeavor to collect the freight from the recipient; his claims from unpaid freight are secured by the freight carrier's statutory right of lien (§ § 440 and § 441 HGB ) or forwarder ( § 464 HGB) on the freight . The carrier is entitled to make the handover of the freight dependent on payment by the recipient ( Section 420 (1) HGB). The seller remains obliged to pay freight as long as the freight claim has not expired ( Section 421 (4) HGB).
Incoterms
There is no corresponding Incoterm for “unfree” because there are no provisions in the Incoterms that oblige the carrier to invoice the recipient. The invoice is issued by the sender. When choosing the Incoterm for postage, a distinction must be made between whether the costs and risks for the main transport are borne by the sender or recipient. The corresponding Incoterm then the Absendeklausel FCA ( english Free Carrier "Free Carrier").
Demarcation
Not to be confused with “freight collect” with cash on delivery according to § 422 HGB. According to this, it is to be assumed that the invoice amount is to be collected in cash or in the form of an equivalent means of payment if the contracting parties have agreed that the freight may only be delivered to the recipient against collection of cash on delivery. While in the case of "unfree" the seller only refers the carrier to the recipient with regard to the freight payment claim, the seller is solely entitled to the payment of the cash on delivery amount.
Individual evidence
- ↑ Stephen C. France / Philip Mann / Bernd Kolossa, Thematic Business Vocabulary English , 2008, p. 201
- ↑ Roland Leuschel / Joachim Gruber, Commercial Law , 2000, p. 84
- ↑ OLG Cologne BB 1973, 496
- ^ Franz Schlegelberger / Ernst Geßler , Commercial Code - Commentary , 1976, p. 95
- ↑ Klaus Hölzel, Gabler Lexikon Material Wirtschaft &kauf , 1983, p. 104
- ↑ Alessandro Bellarditam, The Sender in Freight Obligations and His Liability , 2012, p. 62
