© International Trade Centre, International Trade Forum
- Issue 3/2005
Exporters shipping coffee to New Orleans consulted ITC's Coffee
Guide web site when the port was closed.
Shortly after the port of New Orleans was forced to close due to
Hurricane Katrina, exporters of coffee destined for the United
States posted questions on ITC's web site for the coffee industry
(http://www.thecoffeeguide.org).
They wanted to know the implications for their business of the
closure of a port to which they ship coffee.
The Coffee Guide web site opened in March 2005. It provides
extensive information about trade in green coffee, based on ITC's
entirely updated publication, Coffee: An exporter's guide.
The site also offers a unique, free "Question & Answer" service
from a panel of experts. Full answers to the exporters' questions
are in the online "Q&A" archive (see QA 050), and are
summarized below:
Force majeure works for buyers and sellers
Many coffee exporters are accustomed to the "force majeure" clause,
which allows them to delay or cancel contracts when unavoidable
events make delivery impossible. But the New Orleans port closure
showed that shipping companies and buyers can do the same.
Once New Orleans was officially declared closed, coffee shipments
already embarked were diverted to other ports. The carriers invoked
force majeure. They can do this, but they are expected to take care
to minimize costs to the receiver. Diverted cargo is then usually
discharged at the nearest suitable port (in this case, it was
mostly Houston) and additional costs are at the receiver's
expense.
For coffee not yet shipped but ready at the port of shipment, the
closure meant that both the exporter and the buyer became entitled
to declare force majeure. The exporter could do so because he could
not ship in time; the buyer, because the declared port was closed.
Provided they are made correctly and in time, US and European
coffee trade rules permit declarations of force majeure to delay
shipment for a certain time until the situation blocking delivery
is resolved. In the normal course of trade, the parties should be
able to agree to ship to an alternative port. However, in an
extreme case either party might argue that if the delay exceeds the
stipulated time limit, the contract is automatically
cancelled.
Exporters with shipments not yet booked or delivered into port
would, of course, ask the buyer to nominate a different destination
because New Orleans was no longer a main or basis port. (In coffee
trade terms, this is a port where established shipping lines
schedule regular calls.) But the buyer might refuse, claiming force
majeure and thereby delaying shipment, or demanding instead that
the exporter pay any additional cost at the receiving end.
In both cases, unless parties can reach a friendly agreement, a
final verdict as to who is entitled to do what requires
arbitration. There are two reasons for this: first, port closures
in coffee importing countries are very rare and little, if any,
jurisprudence (earlier rulings) exists. Second, US and European
coffee contracts stipulate that disputes must be settled through
arbitration, not court action.
Hein Jan van Hilten is the chief moderator of the Coffee Guide
web site's Question & Answer service.