Incoterms (was: Re: [ubl] Minutes of Pacific UBL TC call 5|6 May 2008)

[jon.bosak@sun.com]

[roberto@javest.com:]

| is the following UN/ECE recommendation allowing us to include the
| Incoterms 2000 code list into UBL 2.1 ?
| 
| UNE/CE Rec 05
| http://www.unece.org/cefact/recommendations/rec05/rec05_ecetrd259.pdf

Based on two hours of research, I now think that Roberto is right
in saying that we can include the Incoterms code list.  We just
need to be clear on what we mean by that.

I see four things at issue here: the Incoterms themselves; the
three-letter abbreviations of the Incoterms; the composite you get
when an Incoterm abbreviation is followed by the name of a place,
port, or destination and then the tag "Incoterms 2000"; and the
Preambles that define in detail the legal implications of each
Incoterm.

Example Incoterm:

   FREE ON BOARD

Example abbreviation:

   FOB

Example composite:

   FOB Liverpool Incoterms 2000

Example Preamble: 

   "Free on Board" means that the seller delivers when the goods
   pass the ship's rail at the named port of shipment. This means
   that the buyer has to bear all costs and risks of loss of or
   damage to the goods from that point. The FOB term requires the
   seller to clear the goods for export. [etc.]

The Incoterms site confuses these different things when it says,
for example, that "Incoterms need revising periodically."  What it
means is that the Preambles need revising periodically.  As far as
I can tell, the thirteen Incoterms and their three-letter
abbreviations have not changed for over half a century -- probably
longer.

The answer to the question, "Can we include an Incoterms code list
in UBL?" depends on what we mean by "code list" and whether we
mean legal ability or mechanical ability.

If by "Incoterms code list" we mean a genericode version of the
following:

   CFR / COST AND FREIGHT / COUT ET FRET
   CIF / COST, INSURANCE AND FREIGHT / COUT, ASSURANCE ET FRET
   CIP / CARRIAGE AND INSURANCE PAID TO / PORT PAYE, ASSURANCE COMPRISE, JUSQU'A
   CPT / CARRIAGE PAID TO / PORT PAYE JUSQU'A
   DAF / DELIVERED AT FRONTIER / RENDU FRONTIERE
   DDP / DELIVERED DUTY PAID / RENDU DROITS ACQUITTES
   DDU / DELIVERED DUTY UNPAID / RENDU DROITS NON ACQUITTES
   DEQ / DELIVERED EX QUAY / RENDU A QUAI
   DES / DELIVERED EX SHIP / RENDU EX SHIP
   EXW / EX WORKS / A L'USINE
   FAS / FREE ALONG SHIP / FRANCO LE LONG DU NAVIRE
   FCA / FREE CARRIER / FRANCO TRANSPORTEUR
   FOB / FREE ON BOARD / FRANCO BORD

then I believe the answer is yes, we can include it in UBL,
because this list is taken (by me) from the table printed in UNECE
Recommendation No. 5, "ABBREVIATIONS OF INCOTERMS: Alphabetic Code
for Incoterms 2000" (ECE/TRADE/259, Geneva, May 2000).  I note in
passing that the table in ECE/TRADE/259 is identical to that given
in ECE/TRADE/202 (Geneva, January 1996); the latter also provides
the following handy alternative text:

   EXW - EX WORKS
   FCA - FREE CARRIER
   FAS - FREE ALONGSIDE SHIP
   FOB - FREE ON BOARD
   CFR - COST AND FREIGHT
   CIF - COST, INSURANCE AND FREIGHT
   CPT - CARRIAGE PAID TO (named place)
   CIP - CARRIAGE AND INSURANCE PAID TO (named place)
   DAF - DELIVERED AT FRONTIER
   DES - DELIVERED EX SHIP
   DEQ - DELIVERED EX QUAI
   DDU - DELIVERED DUTY UNPAID
   DDP - DELIVERED DUTY PAID

If, on the other hand, we mean by "Incoterms code list" a
genericode version of all possible composites (abbreviations x
places + "Incoterms 2000"), then I think the answer is yes, we
legally can, but do we really want to?  It seems to me that the
resulting code list would be about 13 times as large as the
portcode list, which already takes up about 47 MB of disk space.

If we've modeled this in a way that requires the code element to
contain an entire composite, then it looks like we've got a
problem, but if so, it's a mechanical one, not a legal one.  From
Roberto's note, however, it seems that we've divided this
information between cac:DeliveryTerms/cbc:ID (specific examples:
CIF, FOB, EXW) and cac:DeliveryTerms/cac:DeliveryLocation/cbc:ID,
so unless I'm missing something, we're fine with this.  We just
need to add a gc version of the thirteen-item list above to the
set of code lists in 2.1.

I don't have time today to look into Roberto's second question
regarding commodity codes, but I'll post something when I get the
chance.

Jon