The CFR contract was accepted as a variation of CIF, “and … the differences between the two types of contract are not material for the purposes of this appeal”.2 Under a CIF contract the seller is responsible for making the carriage contract. If he charters a ship to carry the goods, he will in principle become liable under the charterparty for demurrage, whether incurred at loading or discharge.3 It is the buyer, however, who typically controls the discharge process,4 and sellers need to guard against incurring liability for delays which are beyond their control. The main issue in Profindo concerned an attempt by the seller to guard against just such a contingency, by the insertion of (in effect) laytime and demurrage terms into the CFR sale contract.

It should be observed, in passing, that similar problems can arise for FOB buyers who charter vessels to lift their goods, the need now being to protect against sellers delaying the vessel at the loading port.5 The problem is less acute in the FOB context, since, even without laytime and demurrage provisions, FOB buyers are to some extent protected from