Kumar sold 700 television sets to one of its largest customers, Nava, in Venezuela. The contract was on CIF terms, Maracaibo. However, they agreed that Nava would not pay Kumar until Nava actually sold the merchandise. Kumar obtained the televisions from its supplier, received them in its Miami warehouse, loaded them on a trailer, delivered the trailer to its freight forwarder, Maduro, in Florida, and obtained the shipping documents. The trailer was stolen from the Maduro lot and found abandoned and empty. Kumar had failed to obtain marine insurance on the cargo. Kumar sued Maduro and the carrier. The defendants argued that, because the risk of loss had passed from Kumar to Nava, Kumar did not have standing to sue. The trial court agreed with the defendants and dismissed Kumar's case. Kumar appealed.
1. In what way did the wording of the contract contradict the CIF term?
2. If the court said that the parties may vary the terms of their contract to meet their own requirements, why did the court not recognize the contradictory wording?
3. Assume that a seller fails to procure insurance on a shipment as required by contract and that the shipment is lost at sea. As between buyer and seller, which party will bear the loss?