Contact Us
Email Me



Uniformity of procedure and principles applied.


FIRST Posted: 26 sept 2020:  SECOND POSTING  30 Sept 2020

Not edited and proofread  on initial posting. 

personal opinions of the author  included.

FTN  Exporting  has applied aspects of uniformity to its doctrine of trade world wide, by following many aspects of case law  from 1990 onward, as recorded under United Nations Commission on International Trade law (UNCITRAL).The doctrine of trade was last updated in 2020 after reviewing  the latest UNCITRAL 2016 ( New York, USA) Digest of Case Law on the U.N Convention pertaining to Contracts and international sale of goods.


From 2016,  85 states /parties  from differing legal traditions and economies were conjoined in the latest convention,  which accounts for around 70% of the world’s commercial business aspects and  internationally inspired exchanges. Just  like the UN efforts are made to unify trade law and practices, FTN Exporting  has done the same by creating a uniform  trading application that all professional  traders can apply to use, regardless of legal  traditions and practices. The term ‘intermediary’ cannot sustain the type of business being promoted by ill informed others has been the mantra promoted by FTNX for over 32 years. The intermediary had to evolve to align itself more closely with the nature of business, suppliers and end buyers  can agree to legally and lawfully apply. Unlike UNCITRAL, which promotes the idea that ‘flexibility’ in using ‘neutrally sound  terminology’  creates a standard  by ensuring all parties to a deal, recognise the binding effects of term usage and established practices, whereas  FTNX applies a stricter protocol because the nature of business calls for the professional  commodity trader to handle two contracts  at the same time when closing on a commodity deal. The term ‘reasonable time’ is never used by FTNX unless ‘reasonable time’ has been full specified. I,e: “ The Buyer may examine goods  for conformity after they have been delivered to place of destination for a reasonable period of time. A reasonable period of time in this aspect  is defined as ‘ a period not exceeding 90 days.’  In effect the  position of PCT  is far more complex and complicated that that of a single export ready  supplier or end buyer taking possession of goods ordered, as such, our interpretation of  case law under UNCITRAL  is tested and served in a more forceful manner.  For instance, producing a contract to a buyer in a country that does not believe in a God, caused  contract usage terms such “Act of God” to be removed from FTNX  contracts  by 2008. Other contract terms often used by  various leading economies rather than ‘most’ economies,  such as ‘Force Majeure’  remain in place, however  such term usage are fully covered with a ‘description’  in where unlike UNCITRAL, who ‘records’  legal findings,  FTNX vast trading ‘experience and adventure’ is also able to add further to such terms, as  used on a contract, as the professional intermediary  will be conducting business with suppliers and end buyers (Principals)  from differing jurisdictions. FTNX also adopted English contract formation and agency laws and rules  to the fray , because unlike any other country, legal precedents in case law to do with insurance, shipping, trade  and agency,  go back many centuries.  UNCITRAL has over 4000 cases recorded to date to which FTNX has always argued  that our stricter policy,  if used correctly,  not just by PCT but by most  suppliers and end buyers world wide would produce a much more harmonious trading aspect, and produce far less court challenges or arbitration on settling contract matters in dispute.

Recent case study: FTN dealings:

“It came to light that the end buyer personally purchased steel  piping from China  for around US$ 150,000 per each shipment, delivered at CIF Incoterms  2010 (ICC incoterms  2010  or 2020 may be used from Jan 2020). The  USA buyer paid  a 10% deposit, contracts were signed and  the goods were duly delivered, where  payment was cleanly collected upon by the supplier.  Upon goods arriving at USA port, the end buyer was confronted with import  and  freight charges  which must be paid before  he is able to acquire property in the goods purchased, from customs. The Buyer paid  for the goods by SWIFT  not a DLC, as per the ‘total price’ indicated on the suppliers invoice.  The end buyer became furious because the quote made was at CIF  which included advanced freight payment (Pre Paid BOL).The Chinese supplier stated that the invoice was only for payment of steel pipes. The end buyer was forced to pay freight charges of over US$ 30,000.00 again, to obtain the release of his goods in where the call of being ‘ripped off’ soon followed. The fault here was simple to detect. The end end buyer had  used ill informed  improper internal trading procedures instead of acceptable international contracting basis, and  that , he paid for the goods by cash. Had he opened an UCP endorsed DLC , and understood how  to write  a proper CIF contract stridulating freight charges as per incoterms delivery rules, he would have not had to pay for freight twice.  The bank processing the  clean transport documents would have ensured  as much because under UCP DLC rules, the supplier  would have debited  from the account of the end buyer the  listed price of steel piping only, as entered separately on the sellers invoice,  and ensured  that the freight component value  indicated and formally declared,  remains as a credit in the account of the end buyer to draw on, and pay freight  once such freight was ‘earned’ by the carrier. The end buyer did not understand the proper way to apply CIF incoterms delivery mode. He also accepted a single total  sum as the amount payable for goods insurance  and freight. He probably also thought, ‘why spend extra’  to open a DLC. The end buyer has accepted a CIF contract, but ended up with a ‘freight collect’ situation. The answer in retrospect, becomes obvious, for this ‘small deal’. Safe dealings comes at a price. Had he used FTNX, his total bill after commission was secured , with freight paid  would have been under US$ 124,000.00. Taking shortcuts or being ill informed  in this business could end up being a very costly venture. FTNX is the buyer to the undisclosed supplier, when this  side of the deal is closed, protecting the interests of the end buyer comes next. This is also an extraordinary aspect of business, not even served by registered agents representing a disclosed  principal, now goes further in describing why using the specialist skill set of an  informed professional trader, is a very important aspect, even when seasoned  export ready suppliers use our services.”  

Uniformity of process and procedures  is what ICC Incoterms delivery rules and UCP  rules, pertaining  to the issuance of a DLC offers, something that the above end buyer also didn’t comprehend.Incorrectly  interpreting such rules which will  often caused costly legal disputes to arise,  because  often,  such rules lack added clarity. For instance, the ‘Certificate of Origin’ is an import requirement and while the suppliers may be required to secure and pay for this document, as stated under incoterms, as part of the  banks document presentation process, the cost and expense of securing such is for the account of the end buyer in the form of a debit. Unlike an end buyer or  supplier ‘the place of business’ of the PCT as interpreted differently  by  various legal source  is ‘the world.’ UNCITRAL and other established principals of law and trade business do not address such matters–to which  FTNX has done so instead. Private international  laws as apparent within a state are examined when a localised claim is made,  unless the contract specifically addresses the matter  by declaring actual laws in force , or declares that extra territorial rules shall not be used. Two PCT’s  in the same country, one buying and one selling goods  therefore cannot use  ‘international rules , laws and conventions’ when  drafting the term applied  a contract because neither has declared a status  of a seller or buyer.  FTN Exporting has made it’s contracting term of reference  a much more proactive affair, when compared to the  what ‘understandings’ the convention applies. Under UNCITRAL, the  ‘international’ sale of  goods alone is not suffice  to meet  the rules of the convention.  Under FTN process  even  two parties within a state could readily apply  the very same contracting basis  locally as it applies internationally  where the approved amendments, additions and charges are applied to the body of the contract,  because most states or countries also have their own locally administered uniform code of commercial  practice, which may infringe upon international intentions and understanding, like those served under the convention.  

The first rule of ‘uniformity’ is that  the terms applied on the contract is acceptable to the parties signing the contract. The term ‘acceptable’ has the power to overrule matter of convention when conjoined with intention, regardless from which jurisdiction the actors to the transaction emanate from. The second rule of ‘uniformity’  states that  if internationally recognised established  rules  are used as terms in a contract, then the contract should be created  to effectively incorporate such rules intently.  For example,  If ICC  CIF  ‘universally acceptable’ delivery terms are used on the contract, then its those rules that must be reinforced  on the sales contract. If UCP are the rules pertaining to the issuance of the financial instrument, then such rules are also  described intently on the same contract, to which  the same reinforcing aspect applies. It may be that in one country an offer is able to be rejected after it has been accepted, while in another, the acceptance of the offer is legally binding.  The intention of one party to become legally bound  to another is a concept of business  which is universally recognised no matter the legal jurisdiction being addressed. The shaking of the hands by two Goat traders in KSA, form no less of an ‘intention’  than a  PCT in USA buying crude oil from Africa. The scope to interpret such a perspectives differently or incorrectly is not apparent.


The fact that an  end buyer signed a contract where a pre advised UCP endorsed DLC was to be issued, only to find  that its bank will not issue a pre advised DLC, is  the fault  of the  end buyer, failing to make all relevant enquiries about such matters  prior  to the signing of  the contract. Nearly all  courts world wide  would recognise ‘intentions’ of the parties to a contract, and recognise the failing of the parties therein  to  perform, more so if the offer, once ‘accepted’  served a directives stating  “ the end buyer shall enquire prior to the signing of the contract,  if their bank is willing to issue a pre-advised credit.’   In the absence  of case laws stating otherwise, most courts would rule that the contract  would remain valid. In another example ‘A sellers invoice must declare separately all related charges and expenses.”  The fact that a single ‘price’ was applied on the sellers invoice,  and that import customs applied a 5.0%  import tariff of the whole sum  indicated,  has led one trader to argue  before the supreme court that he  was  to be reimbursed the amount outstanding, and that the tariff applies only to the  ‘value of good’ and not the total sum incepted on the invoice; was a futile attempt. Failing to observe  I.e; incoterms delivery rules as defined on the contract and therefore taking ‘short cuts’  on the required and accepted process is what  failed  to win the argument.

It has  been held under the convention that work done to produce the goods themselves is not to be considered the supply of labour or other services’’ and yet this is what the supplier needs to do, spend money and thus make efforts to prepare goods for exportation, even though the  payment instrument  is yet to be established. FTNX insists that all suppliers it engages with are ‘export ready’ or RWA, (Ready, Willing and Financially Able)  prior to signing of the contract.The  offer made prior to the signing of the contract  describes further  what ‘export ready’ means. The supplier must be prepared to made efforts and be in financial position to bear expenses of  physically delivering ordered goods  to a specific place assessable to the end buyer in accordance with the delivery mode being utilised, as prescribed under ICC incoterms. It may be easy to suggest otherwise, but the fact of the matter  is that; the supplier will need to make efforts when  exporting goods,  and fork out considerable amounts of money ‘ to have such good’  made ready at  the ‘place of delivery.’ To offer a ‘BCL’ or some other localised instrument devoid of  international interpretation to a supplier prepared  to accept as much, is a foolish endeavour, laden with risks as the supplier could pay out a huge amount of money  is getting his goods  from i.e: farm gate (EXW) to port or loading in  where the end buyer,  in another country ‘changes  its mind’ even though binding contract is in effect.    

The ‘seller and buyer’  term is an ambiguous term on its own,  as  this is also the  title used by  the PCT, as well as  ill informed intermediaries and traders; which is not readily apparent to others, including those found in  conventions. FTN exporting has defined the seller, buyer, end buyer and supplier status;  hopefully other authorities will commence to do the same, as this one aspect alone adds to matter of interpretation and added confusion. The supplier is  entity holding  possession of export ready  goods being sold  and the ‘property’ in them. The end buyer is the entity taking possession and paying for  ordered goods from the supplier directly, or as purchased from  seller indirectly. In 2017 FTNX had sourced via its agents crude oil from Russia. Among the  end buyer interested,  serval large oil companies approach FTNX  as well. We found a product that the oil companies did not source,  at a price well below market expectations  for large revolving amounts of crude oil supply,  measured in years. The end buyer positively commented  on  the  deal structure as it was fully conveyed on the offer. FTNX and the end buyer ended  up arguing  for week that no ‘registration form’ would be serviced by us, as all the required information  is clearly spelled out  on the ‘great offer ‘ we had made.  FTNX had  further advised that such a pre qualifying  registration forms  would cost thousands of dollars to produce  the required information sought. It cost money  not just for the supplier  to arrange for goods  to be delivered at port of loading; but to  an unwary ill informed PCT,  who may unwittingly served the requirement of the end buyer, who later ‘ changes its mind’  and  fails to perform or changes his mind  about the purchase. It came to light that the end buyer was more interested to find out,  who our supplier was, than concluding the deal with FTNX. It also became clear that this one oil company was not even the end user, and was hoping to flip the contract forward to another end buyer. Large entities  don’t always serves clear perception of their own trading status either. FTNX refused to  service any such prequalifying request of a report,  as a precondition of doing business–as such,  the deal failed to eventuate within a week. The PCT has no protection nor guidance  under UNCITRAL or any other governing body except  for FTNX doctrine of trade on what the legal requirements are, for such traders facing such aspects and many similar  other aspects following the same routine. The only option was to ‘drop the deal and move on.’ To pretend to have a live deal in place,  only to have it collapse months later is truly a wasted effort. To be able to see critical flaws early, is a skill set and discipline that takes time for a PCT to master.  

Describing on the offer all aspects therein clearly to a supplier, regardless of jurisdiction, serves ‘intent’  the acceptance of which delivers the contract. An end buyer  not prepared to execute  a type of safe payment method for goods it intends to purchase once the  contract is signed, is not an end buyer, but deemed merely an entity looking to sight ‘what is on offer’ and learn aspects of process for self use elsewhere. Not only does the PCT needs to handle two complex contract , it also needs to ‘educate’  suppliers  and ‘end buyers’ on acceptable rules, usage and practices therein, which now complicates the trading and subsequent trading process even further. This is why it is crucial that the offer and not the contract  is accurately and clearly  prescribed  in short form, what the contract will fully explain further in long form. It is also the reason why FTNX offers are often  served;  that once signed, are legally binding on parties to the contract, unless specified differently; thus this may seem a ‘flexible option’ more akin to what UNCITRAL is advocating, in reality of a live transaction however only one viable  aspect is  available to the PCT, if it does not want to apply the every strict aspect of orthodox routine. The PCT  may apply that,  ‘the offer is legally binding once signed, upon the seller issuing the contract.’ This is not being flexible, but other his is the action of a trader applying only legally viable options.  The act of ‘releasing the contract’  is what triggers the legally binding status of the offer; for an offer which is signed, ‘but is not returned’ has no binding effect.  In this light, the seller still has a final  decision to make,  prior to  releasing the contract to the buyer who is prepared to become ‘legally bound ‘ on the condition that the contract  follows the expressed terms already conveyed on the offer. This is the last step before parties become legally bound. The intent of the buyer is clearly demonstrated when  returning the offer as signed. The intent of seller is  demonstrated, if it decides to issue the contract. Failing to perform  at this level in where  the end buyer returns the signed offer, as often happens,  at a later date, once the initial validity date on the original offer has expired;  to resume considering the purchase at a later time, hoping to secure that same price,  terms and conditions, it accepted prior, is no longer an option, as a new offer is created, its terms and condition may be changed, in where a small deposit is sought and in where the offer once released is legally binding,  once its returned as signed. Failing to perform  the second time has caused  more than a few end buyers to forfeit their deposit to FTNX.

Understanding uniform acceptable processes starts by understanding what  the offer is prescribing. Interpretation is about  the end buyer asking the seller about matters found on the offer  which was not understood and visa-versa. If fact, the position of the  trade intermediary is a precarious one; as support from statutory authorities is literally non existent in the real world of business, even though much  has been written by inexperienced others  that seems to offer to assist or support  such traders. This is why the true professional trade  intermediary must align itself to conduct business with  the expectations of a supplier or end buyers in sight ; so that it may take advantage of the many laws and rules that  all suppliers and end buyer will need to consider anyway. To do as much, unless declared otherwise, the PCT  must portray the position  that it is acting as a legally defined  ‘Seller’  or ‘Buyer’ at any given time where no disclosure of an end buyer or supplier  is apparent as per of the transaction taking place.  Partial inference is not acceptable. The PCT may act for a disclosed principal,  or undisclosed principal in where the former aspect is that of a registered agent or broker, and the later is that of a Principal.

In the parting aspect, the doctrine also carries a whole host of other unseen aspects of business and life.The doctrine has within its body a number of tested principles which are ostensibly leading maxims  outright. We know, for instance,  that above all else the supplier and goods it is offering,   must be secured first by the PCT or  PSI/ISS assisting such  and that this premise is a premier rule.  One of the misunderstood ‘maxims’ is the idea that “the way a deal starts, dictates how it will end” further meaning; “one who starts a deal incorrectly will find failure later rather than sooner, just when weeks and months have been wasted on a deal only to find an earlier seemingly trivial  mistake has led to failure.” This aspect is not only true  in matters of trade of business but even in matters of everyday life. The use of logic heavily directs matters of trade, as it does in life. 


Japan's Fugaku supercomputer  figuring out Sars Cov II spread rate. I was surprised at the assumptions made, which are incorrect, but did look convincing.The computer assumptions made  are wrong,  because when you “start a premise on  an incorrect aspect, the whole aspect will becomes flawed later rather than sooner.” The computer cannot ‘sight  empirical evidence.‘ What the supercomputer  missed in its evaluation  is as follows.The many unseen  particles / debris in the air at any given time are  positively  charged, allowing particle clusters to also form attracting  to each other. Virtues hitch-hikes on these ideally suited  air borne particles, as well. The scientists feeding data to the super computer missed this vital aspect  of how virtues could readily  and quickly spread with human contact being the primer. Missing such seemingly trivial issues, will produce a flawed result. In winter we all wear, wool, coats, and other fabrics which  readily hold a static electrical charge which is not readily earthed ( discharged ) due to the rubber soled shoes  most of us wear. Every time we bump into someone, come out of a car, comb our hair,  etc.etc.; static electricity forms on our  body which cannot be discharged The discharge intermittently happens when a person i.e;  touches/opens  i.e; a  metal framed / door handle in one instance, in where once inside, static electricity can return once that process that creates static electricity is  once more apparent. All those particles / debris  floating in the air are actually shooting us like bullets. We do not walk into Sars Cov II, it comes to us, like bees to flowers. This now infers that the bridge between Biology  and Electronic interactions   has a possible basis  in  creation-(Genesis ) of all living things. In one experiment, using particles  made of  material than can be seen by sight, we managed to cause  it to actually  turn  90 degrees readily ,  and  even 180 degrees at times, away from its  free falling  aspect, to quickly race towards the statically charged (human) body, located up to one metre away. When such particles contain viruses and the likes , especially those particles  that are ideal carriers of  viruses,  including  microscopic particles pertaining to birds feathers, plastic, pollen,  and leaves etc.etc., then  the issue of  becoming infected  is greatly increased.  Like wise when one infected  person is located on a  statically charged crowded bus or train, tall the passengers on a train of bus can quickly become infected. Our statically charged bodies  simply cannot hide from the daily onslaught  that  attract the air born particles to us  at lightening speeds from all directions. Trillions of them per square inch. This is  how the virus is able  spread to form clusters very quickly, especially in nursing homes as frail elderly unable to discharge static electricity ( blankets, clothes, etc) while lying in bed, become instant targets.Therefore by changing to non static clothing, bedding etc.etc, the spread the virus will decrease proportionally by ostensibly 30% ( presumption) or more–or, if we are able to by-pass the rubber on our shoes, to discharge static electricity to the ground would occur with every step, and protect us all  much more. In summer  the same aspect applies, except  we now wear  less clothes and thus become  even more of an attractive target.  It may seem a ‘long shot to make such claims’, but in theory the aspect seems sound; much more so than a Government, spending 80 million dollars of tax payer money, on a contact tracing App that to date has failed miserably, because the ‘idea’  was incorrectly conceived and  incepted from the start. 



A PCT contacts FTNX with an offer from a supplier. The opening part of the offer states among other ‘strange’ things;  ‘Buyer to furnish a LOI and BCL’ There is no  point in  going further. The Deal is trashed there and then–furthermore, the PCT  who offered it to FTNX obviously has not read the doctrine intently, or perhaps fully understood its premise and therefore indicates to FTNX  that this particular  PCT  has a long way to go in understanding  the  simplest of directives. To go beyond the start of a flawed premise is a mistake. In this  business mistakes mean ‘loss  of time,’ which in turn may cause real deals being lost. Pre 2012, FTNX would RF up to 20 or 30 deals a month in where it took months to finally land a genuine deal that could be tested all the way to contract. Here once can readily asses  that a good PCT should be able to test perhaps 1 up 3 genuine large revolving deals in any given year, in where in the same year 100’s or other ‘deals’ were treated as RF. A PCT can only do as much if they recognise  the difference between a RF dean and a potentially sound deal. This ‘recognition’ must therefore  take place at the start of the transaction. Lack of understanding  the ‘fundamentals’ of the doctrine and procedure therein will often  cause new PCT to act on the first deal, or on any deal  that comes along,  as being a viable deal. It’s later once experience is gained,  that the PCT becomes aware how to recognise a RF deal quickly. The period it takes for a PCT to differentiate between a potentially  good deal and a RF deal varies greatly among the many applicants I have mentored since 2001, where the gap became even wider in 2010, when ITSI was released.  To instruct via a book–‘When a PCT  comes across  the term  LOI or BCL on any offer,  RF the offer immediately and move on,’ meant very little to the majority of mentored applicant . It was only after about of year practising and gaining experience  that  the PCT  following the FTNX doctrine, understood intently  what  directives such instructions was delivering. FTNX wanted the PCT  ‘to immediately  RF’ any deal carrying such terms , because  our  long experience dictates  that a new trader will comes across such offers within the first few months of commencing to trade, via ill informed intermediaries. The strict interpretation of ITSI procedures and strict application of a routine  describes  the attributes  of ‘discipline.’  Most PCT ’s lack discipline when they first commence  to trade, usually within months of  completing the study  aspect. A lack of discipline  as it pertains to the doctrine means  ‘a lack of attention to the details.’  Like wise when a similar  term ‘such as,’must be strictly applied’ is used; most PCT’s  taking up the study, at first don’t bother  to consider  that such a statement   is a very important one; preferring to delve into procedural aspects instead. It seems the added  term of ’No short cuts’  has been often overlooked as well. Not reading the doctrine intently is a ‘short cut.’     


The end buyer has complained after considering  an offer  that they will not open a DLC  and that the end buyer would be  prepare to pay for the goods ordered,  via a Bank Guarantee or some other dubious instrument or method. After arguing  with the PSI/ISS  the virtues of why such a DLC must be used, the end buyer agree’s to sign the offer to which a contract is expected from the PCT  acting as the Seller.  When mentoring others FTNX  would accept  to move forward at this stage of a deal,  so as to deliver a lesson to the applicant being mentored and educated.  When  FTNX is trading alone however, such an event  indicates that the deal has become rubbish fodder (RF)  to which no contract would be issued and that the deal is  terminated there and then. The end buyer wanted to learn procedures from FTNX, and in particular  wanted to examine the  valuable contents of a contract format, as law firms charge a lot of money to produce contracts for their clients. The  ‘client’ (end buyer) has made it very clear  earlier, that they will not open a DLC, to pay for ordered  goods. The mindset or intent  of the client has been exposed early. To believe that the PCT had managed to change the clients mind on the matter of the DLC, is a false perspective that serves hope, but ultimately wastes a lot  of time  on a deal that was already doomed to fail–happens a lot in this business. The doctrine delivers the lesson, but experience cannot be found  in any book, but found in actual practice. Experience  should deliver to  an informed PCT the required insight  that  causes a potential deal in one hand to become RF  in the other–quickly without hesitation. The argument  that the deal  should have been tried to its final conclusion  is usually served by academics, who lack ‘hands on experience’ regarding the subject matter being addressed.

Use the doctrine as intended in its strictest sense and practice the orthodox aspect  first before forming string deals and let  logic reign freely in your thought  processes.  An  ill informed intermediary who has tried to  deal in commodities  for years, copying others who are  using unworkable flawed procedures,  deciding to take  up the study,  often finds  it very difficult to conform to the advice in the doctrine fully. Such traders often make poor candidates, even after they become informed. The minority  of traders who (hardly ever) have not traded online  with ill informed others, prior to taking up the study but whose interest to conduct such a business is very apparent, are in the majority of cases,  the ideal candidate to succeed in this business.  It seems that the old adage “ An old dog cannot learn new trick’  is a sound adage indeed. The PCT must  not be misled or misdirected when trading, which is also another major issue. To remain on track only to be misdirected by a ISS which forces a turn, that the PCT should have not taken creates confusion, delays and ultimately failure. The PCT must direct others because it’s the PCT  who is heading the deal that must bear the full burden of closing upon  a lucrative commodity deal. This is also another critical aspect that some have not completely understood. No matter how many people are string in a string, no matter the size of the deal , one single person has to lead the way– all the way to closing. All who assisted the PCT can only earn a payment of commission, from the PCT heading the deal, each and every time, as each successful deal closes. The PSI/ISS has no option but to trade for a PCT or conduct trades in its own name at a  Principal. In essence the PCT heading the deal is in control of the finances needed to pay the supplier. The use of the  ICC UCP endorsed DLC to pay for ordered goods,  has a narrow track within its frame work to actually lawfully accomodate this very aspect of payments,  initiated by the end buyer or  private commodity traders acting as a  seller or buyer.   ICC incoterms delivery rules  defines exactly, who pays for what service are rendered in getting the goods delivered. The term ‘delivery’ as applied by a PCT as per delivery modes used,  is for the  delivery of goods to port of loading and not physical goods to port of destination. The PCT is conducting a ‘documentary deal’  from the very start, which suggest that the PCT must be proficient in  writing and producing good clear documents, examining documents, endorsing document, storing documents, transferring documents, and collecting payment of such documents. Much more in-house  documents are also required  to be service by the PCT when a string deal is apparent , when compared to the lone trading position.The PCT must master principles of trade my mastering  how to produce and handle documents in  a highly informed manner. That’s the actual skill set  that must be learned,  to which all other aspects of trade must conform with.   The PCT attempting to do as much, who cannot read  and write  in English to a ‘reasonable level of comprehension’ even though the PCT may think otherwise, taking up a complex study as found it ITSI  will result in poorly produced documents which in turn will produce no active deals for the PCT to consider, may be presumed. The  two  sets of rules ( Incoterms / UCP) that must be used by the informed  PCT when concluding on a contract,  is what allows the professional trader  to safely transverse the whole commodity business  spectrum, way beyond buying and selling commodities, I.e: FTN is currently conducting an ‘investment project’  solely based on the aspect of ‘entrepreneurial’ business process offered in ITSI.  The FTNX doctrine of trade offers a  safe structure  and  formidable set of procedures and routines that must be strictly obeyed,  to administer and serve as intended, said rules and added aspect therein. The contract deliveries the final routine that all parties to the contract and subsequent deal,  agree to abide by. Concentrating intently on the start of the deal, and deciding from the very  start, that you will apply,  over the longer terms measured in years,  genuine  efforts  to learn and close a deal is a slow, paced and methodical manner–from the very start, where ‘discipline’ enters the fray too intimately  conducts proceedings, are very  important albeit  often dismissed aspects,  that must be considered intently before taking up this  kind of business.Such  said import export deals don’t close easily, that’s why such deals produce large lucrative profits. One has to work the mind hard, to secure such deals. To trade alone or with conjoined PSI/ISS members of a string, the intent to apply a uniform well tested  process  must also very apparent–from the start. As  matters of doctrine and practices increase , so should the  matter of ‘uniformity’ become further refined.   


 © FTNX.net  2020 All right reserved. Subject to final corrections in due course.