es NCOTERMS CASE STUDIES Based on your knowledge of Incoterms, analyze each of the following cases -- who should win, and why? 1. American Company Imports on CIF terms from Germany An Illinois company bought an MRI machine from a German seller. The terms were "CIF New York, buyer will arrange and pay for customs clearance as well as transport to [Illinois]". The contract also stated that the machine remained the property of seller until the complete payment had been received. The MRI was loaded in Germany in good working order. When it arrived, it was damaged. The buyer's insurer sued the seller and argued that since seller had insisted on a "retention of title" clause that they still owned the merchandise when it was delivered in its defective state and therefore seller should pay for the repairs. Seller disagreed and argued that under a CIF contract they were not responsible. Who wins, and why? 2.Sale of 140,000 barrels of gasoline to Ecuador Ecuadorean company contracted to buy 140,000 barrels of unleaded gasoline from US oil company on terms which were "CFR La Libertad (Ecuador)". The goods were to be loaded in Houston and the gasoline was required to have a gum content of no more than 3 milligrams per hundred liters, to be determined at the port of departure. The gasoline was tested by the inspection company nominated by the buyer and the test showed quality was ok. However, when the ship arrived in Ecuador, a second test showed that now the gum content was too high, and buyer refused to take delivery. Seller had to resell the gasoline to someone else at a loss of $2 million, and sued for damages. Who wins, and why? 3. Chinese Company Sells Bad Beans A Chinese seller sold 230 metric tons of small Chinese white beans to an American buyer, under terms that were "C&F Portland, Oregon". The goods were loaded in 6 containers in Hong Kong with certificates of quality signed by an independent inspection agency in Hong Kong. Upon entry to the U.S. the Food and Drug Administration tested a sample of the beans and determined that they "contained filth" and detained the shipment. The American buyer informed the Chinese seller that as a result of the negative inspection they were now rejecting the shipment (6 months after arrival in the US), and they re-sold the goods to a South African buyer. The American buyer now sues and claims that it should receive a refund from Chinese seller. Who wins, and why?