Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation v. Korean LG Corporation Over the Dispute of International Sale of Goods

北京市物资总公司诉韩国LG商事国际货物买卖纠纷案

Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation v. Korean LG Corporation Over the Dispute of International Sale of Goods

Civil Judgment of the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality

First Instance Judgment of the Economic Tribunal No. 422 [1996]

Plaintiff: Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation, domiciled at No. 2, Huaibaishu Street, Xuanwu District, Beijing Municipality.

Legal representative: Zhou Xiaoyuan, general manager.

Authorized agent: Li Yanrong, department manager of Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation.

Authorized agent: Li Huanfu, lawyer from Beijing Economic Law Firm.

Defendant: LG Corporation, domiciled at Twin Towers, 20, Yoidodong, Youngdungpo- qu, Seoul 150 - 606, Korea.

Legal representative: Piao Xiuhuan, CEO.

Authorized agents: Wang Hong and Xing Dongmei, lawyers from Xin Li Law Firm.



Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Goods & Materials Corp.), the plaintiff, brought a lawsuit against LG Corp. concerning the case on a dispute over international sale of goods. This Court accepted and filed the case on May 13, 1996, then formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, and appointed Yang Xiaoyong, the judge, to serve as the presiding judge of the collegial panel. Meanwhile, this Court informed both parties of the members of the collegial panel. The collegial panel sent a notice for response to LG Corp. on May 20, 1996, and LG Corp. submitted a defense to this Court on June 25, 1996. On July 15, 1996, the collegial panel notified both parties that the coming public trial of this case will be held in Courtroom 1105 by this Court on August 15, 1996. After receipt of the legal subpoena for opening of the court, LG Corp. filed a written application to the collegial panel on August 7, 1996 for extension with the reason that the person in charge of the affairs of LG Corp. was not in China at that time, therefore the case facts would not be easily clarified and the trial would not go on smoothly. The collegial panel approved this application after collegial discussion. On September 4, 1997, this Court opened the court publicly and tried the case in accordance with the law. Li Yanrong and Li Huanfu, authorized agents of Goods & Materials Corp., Wang Hong and Xing Dongmei, authorized agents of LG Corp. all participated the litigation. Before the opening of the court, both parties clearly expressed to choose Chinese law as the governing law to settle this dispute. The trial of this case has now been finalized.

Goods & Materials Corp. claimed that:In February 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. was entrusted by the Operation and Development Corporation, subsidiary of Beijing Chemical and Light Industry Corporation to import styrene. After accepting this entrustment, Goods & Materials Corp. contacted the LG Corp.'s Beijing representative office on the afternoon of February 13, 1996, inquiring about the prices on the import of 2000 tons of styrene. On the morning of February 14, 1996, Mr. Cen Nengwu, an employee of LG Corp.'s Beijing representative office, quoted a firm price to Goods & Materials Corp. by phone, claiming that it could supply 2000 tons of styrene originated from Korea, to be delivered at Zhanjiang, China, between April 10 to 20, 1996, at the price of 560 USD per ton, the terms of payment to be sight L/C, and condition of delivery to be “CFR”, etc.. In the call, LG Corp. required that Goods & Materials Corp. confirm the quoted firm price on February 14. On the afternoon of that day (that is, February 14), Goods & Materials Corp. sent a confirmation letter by fax to LG Corp., which clearly accepted all the offers proposed by LG Corp.. By then, the sales contract between both parties had been legally and officially formed. After the contract was formed, Goods & Materials Corp. immediately notified the Operation and Development Corporation, its entrusting entity, that it was entitled to conclude processing contracts with the processing plants and to rent storage cans. On the morning of February 29, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. received a written notice from LG Corp., in which LG Corp. first acknowledged it had received the confirmation fax sent by Goods & Materials Corp. on February 14, and also acknowledged that the matter was delayed due to some causes occurred in Korea, but the price had risen then. Meanwhile LG Corp. proposed some remedial measures in that notice, but the implementation of such remedial measures failed again due to LG Corp.'s reason. As LG Corp. did not implement the contract pursuant to its acceptance, the import entrusting entity of Goods & Materials Corp. was put into a passive situation, since it had concluded a processing agreement with another plant. Therefore, it could only seek supply of goods from other companies. However, the price had risen up to 6,430 Yuan per ton. LG Corp.'s breach had brought 1,195,201.20 Yuan of economic losses to Goods & Materials Corp., including: (1) 961,961.20 Yuan of loss arising from new purchases due to the rise of price; (2) Goods & Materials Corp.'s 139,944 Yuan of loss in the costs for agency formalities; (3) 93,296 Yuan of penalty to be paid by Goods & Materials Corp. to the import entrusting entity. In addition, Goods & Materials Corp. paid 35,860 Yuan of lawyer's retainer for the litigation, and also paid translation fee, litigation fee, etc.. All the above losses were caused by LG Corp. due to its breach. Therefore, Goods & Materials Corp. requested the court to rule:

1. LG Corp. should pay 1,195,201.20 Yuan of economic losses it had caused to Goods & Materials Corp. due to its breach;

2. LG Corp. should pay 35,860 Yuan of lawyer fees occurred to Goods & Materials Corp.;

3. LG Corp. should pay the litigation costs (including the translation fee and the litigation fee).

After the court was opened, Goods & Materials Corp. submitted a written supplementary opinion on the case to this Court, which emphatically stated that both parties set up a contractual relationship on February 14, 1996 on the sale of 2000 tons of styrene. After that, it was due to LG Corp.'s breach and failure to supply goods that both parties negotiated on the remedy. While the remedial measures proposed by LG Corp. were not new offers, and even after Goods & Materials Corp. agreed on the remedial measures, LG Corp. still failed to implement them. Therefore, LG Corp. should bear all the liabilities for this dispute.

LG Corp. contended that:Goods & Materials Corp.'s bill of complaint did not state the facts completely, and concealed some other important facts. On February 14, 1996, an employee of LG Corp. quoted by phone the price of 2000 tons of styrene originated from Korea to Goods & Materials Corp., and Goods & Materials Corp. confirmed on the same day by fax. By then, the sales contract between both parties had been lawfully formed. On February 29, 1996, both parties negotiated again on the supply of the above said goods, and both agreed to make some modifications to the supply determined on February 14. On March 1, LG Corp. sent an offer to Goods & Materials Corp. by fax, but Goods & Materials Corp. did not accept this offer, instead, it sent a new offer to LG Corp. on the delivery date and other matters, and meanwhile required that both parties conclude a formal contract. The contract was drafted by Goods & Materials Corp.. LG Corp. was unable to accept Goods & Materials Corp.'s this new offer despite of great efforts. Thus, both parties failed to reach an agreement with regard to this issue in the long run, nor did they conclude sales contract. As for this important fact, Goods & Materials Corp. did not mention it in the bill of complaint at all. The point of this case lied in that, Goods & Materials Corp. wrongly ascertained the new offer it sent to LG Corp. on March 1 as the acceptance to LG Corp.'s offer, and considered that both parties had reached a sales contract, which was completely the result of Goods & Materials Corp.'s misunderstanding and/or lack of correct understanding of the contract and relevant laws. On the premise that both parties did not reach an effective contract, LG Corp. had not breached any contract at all, and Goods & Materials Corp. had no factual or legal basis to claim LG Corp. to bear the breach liabilities and indemnify its economic losses.

After the court was opened, LG Corp.'s agent ad litem submitted a written statement of agency to this Court, with the main contents to be: in this case, there did not exist an effective contract on international sale of goods which was formed in accordance with the law, thus LG Corp. should not bear any breach liabilities or indemnification liabilities; Goods & Materials Corp.'s litigation claims were lack of lawful and reasonable basis.

The following has been verified through the trial:

I. Occurrence and Process of the Dispute in this Case between Both Parties

On February 9, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. and the Operation and Development Corporation of Beijing Chemical and Light Industry Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Chemical and Light Industry Corp.) concluded an “Import Agency Agreement”, which stipulated that Chemical and Light Industry Corp. entrusted Goods & Materials Corp. to import 2000 tons of styrene, with the date of arrival to be between April 1 and April 10 of 1996, the price to be 530-550 USD/ton, the cost for agency formalities to be 1.5% of the CFR, and the breach penalty to be 1% of the total amount of agreed imports. The agreement also stipulated that in case any party caused other losses to the other party due to breach, it shall pay indemnification. After that, Goods & Materials Corp. immediately inquired LG Corp.'s representative office in Beijing (hereinafter referred to as LG Corp.'s Beijing office) about the price, and the representative office quoted prices to Goods & Materials Corp. by phone on February 14, 1996. On the afternoon of the same day, Goods & Materials Corp. accepted the quotation by fax. Up to then, the sales relationship between Goods & Materials Corp. and LG Corp. had been established. The specific clauses determined by both parties were as follows: Goods & Materials Corp. subscribed from LG Corp. 2000 metric tons of styrene originated from Korea, with the specification to be ASITM2827-88, the date of arrival to be between April 10 and April 15, 1996, the price to be USD560/MT (560 USD per ton); CNF (Note: as indicated in the original text) Zhanjiang, and the method of payment to be L/C AT SIGHT (sight L/C).

On February 29, 1996, LG Corp.'s Beijing office sent a fax to Goods & Materials Corp., with the main contents as follows: They were unable to supply the goods as agreed upon in the negotiated clauses due to change of the situation, and they suggested Goods & Materials Corp. buy another batch of styrene, with the price to be 575 USD/ton, and the date of arrival to be April 1.

On March 1, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. sent a fax to LG Corp.'s Beijing office, saying that their company accepted the latter's price quotation of USD 575/MT, CFR Zhanjiang; and that they would draft the contract as soon as possible for both parties to sign formally. Goods & Materials Corp. also requested the office to fax the detailed specification in English under ASM 2827-88 to them so as to print it on the written contract. On that day, LG Corp.'s Beijing office sent a fax to Goods & Materials Corp. saying that they had obtained the goods under the following conditions: name of the goods, styrene monomer; place of origin, Korea; quality, ASTMD-2827-88 standard; quantity, 2000 metric tons +/–5%; price, CFR, FAS (Zhanjiang Port, China), 575 USD per ton; method of payment, L/C at sight; date of delivery, arriving at Zhanjiang on about April 1, 1996; and that they notified Goods & Materials Corp. the day before to arrange storage cans by the shore from April 1 so that LG Corp. could pick up the goods. LG Corp.'s Beijing office also expressed their great thanks to Goods & Materials Corp. for the written confirmation on the above conditions. On the same day, that is, on March 1, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. also sent another fax to LG Corp.'s Beijing office, saying that it thanked the latter's price quotation by fax on March 1 regarding the 2000 tons of styrene monomer, and it thereby formally confirmed as follows: name of the goods, styrene monomer; specification, AstMD-2827-88; quantity, 2000MT+/-5%; place of origin, Korea; price, USD 575/MT CFRZHANING, CHINA (Note: as indicated in the original text); date of arrival, between April 1 and April 15, 1996; method of payment, L/C AT SIGHT. In addition, Goods & Materials Corp. requested LG Corp.'s Beijing office to do the following as soon as possible: 1. to state the detailed specification of ASTMD-2827-88 in English and then to fax to Goods & Materials Corp. for drafting the contract; 2. to try great efforts to extend the date of arrival up to April 8, 1996!….

On March 5, 1996, LG Corp.'s Beijing office sent a fax to Goods & Materials Corp., with the main contents to be: The office received Goods & Materials Corp.'s confirmation at 4:40 pm (Beijing time) on the afternoon of March 1. However, Beijing time was one hour later than Korean time, that is to say, Goods & Materials Corp.'s confirmation arrived at LG Corp.'s Beijing office at 5:40 of Korean time. As LG Corp.'s Beijing office did not receive Goods & Materials Corp.'s confirmation before 5:30 of Korean working time on requesting the supply of goods on April 1 or so, it had sold that batch of goods.

On March 6, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. sent a fax to LG Corp.'s Beijing office, saying that it had concluded with Zhanjiang Sino-US Chemical Industry Corporation a contract, under which it decided to purchase goods in the middle of April and would process poly-styrene; if the raw materials did not arrive at the stipulated time, it would indemnify such losses including the loss from the plant's shutdown, the loss from the storage cans' vacancy, etc. It had managed to find two sources of goods: 1. Hyundai Company would supply the goods at the price of 650 USD/ton, according to which LG Corp.'s Beijing office should indemnify Goods & Materials Corp. 1,593,600 Yuan, which could be converted into 191,300 USD; 2. Yonghui Co. would supply the goods at the price of 6,450 Yuan/ton, according to which LG Corp.'s Beijing office should indemnify Goods & Materials Corp. 683,300 Yuan, which could be converted into 82,000 USD. Goods & Materials Corp. requested LG Corp.'s Beijing office to give a reply by 12 o'clock of Beijing time on March 7 as to which proposal for settlement to choose. On the same day (that is, March 6), Chemical and Light Industry Corp. and Zhanjiang Sino-US Chmical Industry Corporation concluded the “Contract on Purchasing and Processing Materials”.

On March 7, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. sent a fax to LG Corp.'s Beijing office saying that it had concluded the contract on processing poly-styrene and paid the fee for pre-processing. It reminded LG Corp.'s Beijing office to notice two suggestions and give a reply by 12 o'clock on March 8: 1. it thought there existed many disadvantageous factors on the 1500 tons of goods in Yuyao….; 2. due to the above reasons, it suggested LG Corp.'s Beijing office make a decision as soon as possible to give up the goods from Yuyao, and to adopt the goods supplied by Yonghui Co., so that the indemnification could be limited to 82,000 USD of price margin.

On March 8, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. again sent a fax to LG Corp.'s Beijing office saying that since the validity period of Yonghui Co.'s price quotation would expire at 12 o'clock on that day, LG Corp.'s Beijing office must give a reply to it by that time, otherwise it would have to confirm to subscribe Yonghui Co.'s goods, and would have to claim against LG Corp.'s Beijing office for the loss of price margin.

LG Corp. did not formally reply any of the above faxes sent by Goods & Materials Corp. from March 6, 1996. Later, Goods & Materials Corp. had ever negotiated with LG Corp. on the indemnification, but both parties failed to reach an agreement, therefore, Goods & Materials Corp. brought a lawsuit to this Court.

It is also verified that, Chemical and Light Industry Corp. and Beijing Yonghui Industrial and Trade Development Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yonghui Co.) concluded a “Contract on the Sale of Industrial and Mineral Products” on the sale of styrene on March 8, 1996.

II. Presentation by Both Parties, and Results on Cross-Examination and Check of the Evidence

Goods & Materials Corp. submitted the following evidence to this Court when bringing the lawsuit:

(1) “Import Agency Agreement” concluded between Goods & Materials Corp. and Chemical and Light Industry Corp. on February 9, 1996;

(2) the fax sent by Goods & Materials Corp. to LG Corp. on February 14, 1996;

(3) the fax sent by LG Corp.'s Beijing office to Goods & Materials Corp. on February 29, 1996;

(4) the “Contract on Purchasing and Processing Materials” concluded between Chemical and Light Industry Corp. and Sino-US Chemical Industry Corporation on March 6, 1996;

(5) the “Contract on the Sale of Industrial and Mineral Products” concluded between Chemical and Light Industry Corp. and Yonghui Co. on March 6, 1996.

During the trial by this Court, Goods & Materials Corp. submitted the following supplementary evidences to this Court:

(1) invoices on the styrene purchased by Chemical and Light Industry Corp. (altogether 10 pieces);

(2) receipts of Goods & Materials Corp. on paying the lawyer retainers;

(3) letters of Chemical and Light Industry Corp. on claiming Goods & Materials Corp. to pay the indemnification;

(4) faxes between Goods & Materials Corp. and LG Corp.'s Beijing office from March 1 to March 8, 1996.

LG Corp. submitted the following evidencesto this Court when making the response:

(1) the fax sent by LG Corp. to Goods & Materials Corp. on February 29, 1996;

(2) the fax sent by LG Corp. to Goods & Materials Corp. on March 1, 1996;

(3) two faxes sent by Goods & Materials Corp. to LG Corp. on March 1, 1996.

After the hearing and cross-examination of the evidences, both parties had no objection to the matters reflected by the above evidence, but had divergences on the legal meaning of the 4 faxes sent by both parties to each other on February 29 and March 1, 1996. Goods & Materials Corp. considered that the fax it received on February 29, 1996 only meant that LG Corp. proposed the remedial measures after knowing it had breached the contract, while the faxes between both parties on March 1, 1996 indicated that both parties had reached an agreement on the remedial measures proposed by LG Corp., and thus a new contract was formed. However, LG Corp. considered that, in the fax it sent to Goods & Materials Corp. on February 29, 1996, it had explicitly modified the intent of the original contract, while the two faxes it received from Goods & Materials Corp. on March 1 in the same year indicated that Goods & Materials Corp. agreed to cancel the sales contract originally reached with LG Corp., and meanwhile proposed a new offer to LG Corp..

After the hearing and cross-examination of the evidences, the evidences submitted by both parties was ascertained by this Court to be effective as proof.

This Court was of the opinion that, with regard to the dispute between both parties and the results on cross-examination and check of the evidences, this case could be confirmed as follows:

I. Whether There Existed A Sales Contract between the Parties in This Case

The fax sent by Goods & Materials Corp. to LG Corp. on February 14, 1996 met the requirements of an “acceptance” and was acknowledged by both parties, thus it should be an effective acceptance to the relevant offer of Goods & Materials Corp. to LG Corp.. Therefore, both parties did reach an agreement on January 14, 1996 on the sale of 2000 tons of styrene, and established the sales contractual relationship between both parties.

II. Whether of the Sales Contract between the Parties Was Terminated and Whether There Was A New Sales Contract

(1) The fax sent by LG Corp. to Goods & Materials Corp. on February 29, 1996 indicated that, LG Corp. had ever tried to negotiate with Goods & Materials Corp. to set up a new contract relationship and terminate the original one when it was unable to implement the sales contract entered into with Goods & Materials Corp. on February 14, 1996, so as to be exempted from the risk of bearing breach liabilities. Goods & Materials Corp. expressed explicitly in the fax which it sent to LG Corp. on March 1 that it would accept LG Corp.'s this expectancy, and meanwhile proposed a requirement on concluding a formal contract on the conditions of delivery newly determined between both parties. In accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the “Foreign Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, that is, “If an agreement is reached by means of letters, telegrams or telex and one party requests a signed letter of confirmation, the contract shall be formed only after the letter of confirmation is signed”, after Goods & Materials Corp. had clearly proposed the requirement to conclude a formal written contract, but before the formal contract was concluded, it should not, in accordance with Chinese law, be considered that both parties had established a contract binding on both parties with respect to the re-negotiated clauses on supply of goods. However, in accordance with Item (3) of Article 31 of “Foreign Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, if the parties agree through negotiation to terminate a contract, the contract shall be terminated. Therefore, once Goods & Materials Corp. explicitly expressed that it was willing to accept LG Corp.'s new conditions of delivery, the contract relationship between them on the sale of 2000 tons of styrene, which was established on February 14, 1996, was terminated due to the consistent expression of intent by both parties.

(2) On March 1, 1996, LG Corp. again sent a fax to Goods & Materials Corp.. In respect of the contents, this fax met the basic conditions of an offer, thus it should be a new offer. LG Corp. explicitly proposed in this offer that the date of arrival was around April 1, 1996. Goods & Materials Corp. replied on that day to accept the conditions of delivery proposed by LG Corp., but added new requirements on the date of delivery, that is, the date of arrival should be between April 1, 1996 and April 15, 1996. Obviously, Goods & Materials Corp. explicitly denied the date of delivery time to be on or before April 1. Therefore, Goods & Materials Corp.'s this fax on March 1 did not constitute an effective acceptance, but a counter-offer. That is, it was a new offer. An effective acceptance should completely ratify the offer without any substantial amendment. Thus, up to that time, no new sales contract relationship was formed between Goods & Materials Corp. and LG Corp..

(3) It could be clearly seen from the fax sent by LG Corp. to Goods & Materials Corp. on March 5, 1996 that, LG Corp. wrongly ascertained the fax sent by Goods & Materials Corp. on March 1, 1996 as a “confirmation” of LG Corp.'s offer. However, as stated before, neither of Goods & Materials Corp.'s replies to LG Corp.'s faxes on February 29 and March 1 constituted an acceptance of legal meaning. LG Corp. asserted that it was unable to supply the goods and to make the acceptance since the time for Goods & Materials Corp.'s confirmation to arrive LG Corp. had exceeded Korean working time and the goods were then sold. However, this explanation could not be tenable, because the offer sent by LG Corp. on March 1, 1996 did not explicitly indicate the time limit for acceptance. Although LG Corp.'s above explanation could not be tenable, objectively LG Corp. did not accept the new offer sent by Goods & Materials Corp.'s on March 3, 1996. Therefore, it should still not be considered that there was a new sales contract relationship between Goods & Materials Corp. and LG Corp..

III. Whether Goods & Materials Corp.'s Litigation Claims are Tenable

(1) Goods & Materials Corp. alleged that, due to LG Corp.'s breach, its principal, Chemical and Light Industry Corp., had to purchase goods from Shuihui Corp., with the price at 6430 Yuan per ton, which was higher than 560 USD/ton (equal to 5,949.0194 Yuan per ton) accepted by LG Corp.. As a result, Chemical and Light Industry Corp. paid 961,961.20 Yuan additionally for purchasing 2000 tons of styrene. Although when this case occurred, Goods & Materials Corp. did not pay the additional amount to Chemical and Light Industry Corp., Chemical and Light Industry Corp. explicitly expressed that it would reserve the right to claim this amount of price margin against Goods & Materials Corp., therefore, LG Corp. should bear this amount of price margin. This Court held that, since the contract relationship between both parties on the sale of 2000 tons of styrene, which was set up on February 14, was terminated on March 1, 1996, the “loss of price margin” alleged by Goods & Materials Corp.'s principal, Chemical and Light Industry Corp., which was formed on March 8, 1996, was irrelevant to LG Corp., thus the reason for Goods & Materials Corp.'s to assert that LG Corp. should indemnify this amount of price margin was obviously inappropriate, and this litigation claim should not be tenable.

(2) Goods & Materials Corp. held that, due to LG Corp.'s breach, Goods & Materials Corp. suffered from 139,944 Yuan of loss of costs for agency formalities, which should be indemnified by LG Corp.. This Court held, the fundamental reason for Goods & Materials Corp.'s loss of costs for agency formalities lied in Goods & Materials Corp.'s failure to complete the matters entrusted by its principal according to the stipulations between them, and such failure was caused due to Goods & Materials Corp.'s own mistake in dealing with its sales relationship with LG Corp. Moreover, LG Corp. did not violate any law in dealing with this matter, and thus should not bear any legal liabilities. Meanwhile, this Court noticed that, the date of arrival determined in the “Import Agency Agreement” between Goods & Materials Corp. and Chemical and Light Industry Corp. was between April 1 and April 10, 1996, and the price was 530-550 USD/ton. However, the date of arrival determined between Goods & Materials Corp. and LG Corp. on February 14, 1996 was between April 10 and April 15, 1996, and the price was USD560/MT. Therefore, even if the parties in this case implemented the contract on February 14, 1996, Goods & Materials Corp. did not comply with the entrustment contract between Chemical and Light Industry Corp. and itself. In legal sense, it should not charge the costs for agency formalities according to the stipulations.

(3) As for Goods & Materials Corp.'s claim that LG Corp. should bear the 93,296 Yuan of penalty for breach it paid to Chemical and Light Industry Corp., this Court held, since Goods & Materials Corp.'s failure to complete the matters entrusted by its principal was caused by itself, and LG Corp. did not have any breach on this issue. This amount of penalty for breach should not be borne by LG Corp. on behalf of Goods & Materials Corp. Thus Goods & Materials Corp.'s this claim could not be tenable, either.

(4) As for the claim that LG Corp. should bear the 35,860 Yuan of agency fee paid by Goods & Materials Corp. to its lawyer for bringing the lawsuit, this Court held, as none of Goods & Materials Corp.'s litigation claims could be tenable, there was no legal basis for Goods & Materials Corp. to claim LG Corp. to bear the lawyer fees paid for litigation.

(5) Goods & Materials Corp. also asserted to this Court that the litigation costs it had paid should be borne by LG Corp.. This Court held, in accordance with the provisions in the “Measures for the People's Courts to Charge Fees on Litigation”, litigation costs should be borne by the losing party. Therefore, unless an agreement on the sharing of litigation costs was reached for the dispute was otherwise settled through negotiation by the parties, the people's court would, in accordance with the above said provisions, determine the issue of bearing the litigation costs (including the case acceptance fee) pursuant to the judicial power.

As a whole, in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Item (c) of Article 31 of the “Foreign Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China”, This Court adjudicated as follows:

Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation's litigation claims should be rejected.

The 16166 Yuan of litigation fee should be borne by Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation (which had been paid).

If refusing to accept the present judgment, Beijing Goods and Materials Corporation may, within 15 days as of service of the present judgment, and LG Corp. may, within 30 days as of service of the present judgment, appeal to the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality by submitting a petition of appeal to this Court, together with the duplicates according to the number of the other party/parties, and by paying 16,166 Yuan of appellate case acceptance fee (Bank of Deposit: Industrial and Commercial Bank, Dongtieying Sub-branch; Account: 144202-29; Payee: the No. 2 Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality). In case of failure to pay the appeal case acceptance fee within 7 days after the expiry of the period for appeal, the appeal shall be regarded to have been automatically withdrawn.

　　　　Chief Judge　Yang Xiaoyong

　　　　Acting Judge　Shen Xiaoqi

　　 　Acting Judge　Yang Mingjie

　　　　　December 21, 1998

Court Clerk　 Wu Ziwen

Comment:

This case is about a dispute over the contract of international sale of goods. The structure of the judgment is very clear, and the substantial contents have sufficiently embodied the principle of convincing people by reasoning and that to be based on facts and to take law as the criterion. The judgment ascertains the facts on the basis of the evidences provided by the plaintiff and the defendant as well as the cross-examination of the evidences, which is very convincing. On this basis, the judgment sufficiently demonstrates the legal issues on the dispute between both parties, the applicable laws and the reason thereof. The law is correctly applied upon clear verification of the facts, and then the liabilities to be borne by the parties are determined along a rational line. The judgment has been deeply considered by the judges no matter whether when the facts are stated or when the laws are cited, and no mark of mechanical copying is found.

The judgment is very careful in demonstrating and analyzing the evidences. First, with regard to whether there is a sales contract between the parties in this case, the legal provisions and judicial practices indicate that when the judgment was made, no sufficient attention has been paid to the question of offer and acceptance. Under this circumstance, the judgment starts from the legal relationship and legal liabilities in the offers and acceptances, and defines the legal relationship and legal liabilities between the parties in this case, which is a breakthrough and an innovation as well. Second, the key point to clarify whether there is a new sales contract upon the termination of the original sales contract between the parties lies in the ascertainment on the legal meaning of the four faxes sent by both parties to each other on February 29 and March 1, 1996. If the former fax does not constitute an offer, then the contract will certainly not be formed due to the lack of the offer; while if it constitutes an offer, then the latter fax may possibly constitute an acceptance. The judgment has carefully analyzed the contents in the former fax, and ascertained that this fax expressed the plaintiff's intent to conclude a formal contract. Therefore, even if the plaintiff's this fax constitutes an acceptance, the contract between both parties may only formed at the time of conclusion of the contract. It is correct for the judgment to confirm in accordance with the contents of the fax and the “Foreign Economic Contract Law” that the new contract was not formed at that time. The judgment also analyzed the latter fax in the same way. The contents of the latter fax were explicit and specific, and clearly expressed the defendant's intent to conclude a contract with the other party, that is, once the other party confirmed the fax, the defendant would conclude a contract with it, which met the conditions for the formation of an offer, and therefore was a lawful offer. However, the confirmation letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant after receipt of the offer could not constitute an effective acceptance, because it changed the time of delivery and did not meet the conditions for an acceptance. An acceptance shall not substantially amend the contents of an offer, but shall be consistent with that offer in respect of the substantial clauses. The time of delivery was closely related to both parties' benefits, and was a substantial clause of the offer. The plaintiff amended and delayed the time of delivery, which led to invalidity of the plaintiff's acceptance. As a result, there was only the defendant's offer, not the plaintiff's acceptance to the offer, therefore, no new contract was formed.

北京市物资总公司诉韩国LG商事国际货物买卖纠纷案

北京市第二中级人民法院
民事判决书

(1996)二中经初字第422号

　　原告　北京市物资总公司。
　　法定代表人　周小元，总经理。
　　委托代理人　李艳蓉，北京市物资总公司部门经理。
　　委托代理人　李焕富，北京市经济律师事务所律师。
　　被告　LG商事。
　　委托代理人　王宏，信利律师事务所律师。
　　委托代理人　邢冬梅，信利律师事务所律师。
　　原告北京市物资总公司(以下简称物资公司)诉被告LG商事国际货物买卖纠纷一案，本院于1996年5月13日立案受理后，依法组成合议庭，并指定审判员杨小勇担任合议庭审判长，同时将合议庭人员组成情况告知了原、被告双方当事人。合议庭于1996年5月20日向被告LG商事发出应诉通知书，被告LG商事于1996年6月25日向本院提交了答辩状。1996年7月15日，合议庭依法通知原、被告双方于1996年8月15日在本院1105法庭公开开庭审理本案。被告LG商事在收到本院开庭传票后于1996年8月7日向合议庭提出书面申请，以被告方的主要经办人目前不在中国，为便于澄清案情并使审理顺利进行为由，请求延期开庭。对此申请，合议庭经合议后予以准许。1997年9月4日，本院依法公开开庭审理了本案，原告方代理人李艳蓉、李焕富，被告方代理人王宏、邢冬梅均到庭参加诉讼。开庭之前，双方当事人明确表示选择中国法律作为处理本争议所适用的准据法。本案现已审理终结。
　　原告物资公司诉称：1996年2月，原告接受北京市化工轻工总公司经营开发公司的委托，代理其进口苯乙烯。原告在接受了此项委托后，于1996年2月13日下午与被告在北京的办事处联系，就进口2000吨苯乙烯事宜进行询价。1996年2月14日上午，被告方北京办事处的工作人员岑能武先生以电话方式向原告方实盘报价称：可供韩国产2000吨苯乙烯，交货地点为中国湛江，交货时间为1996年4月10日至20日，价格每吨560美元，付款方式为即期信用证，交货条件“CFR”(成本加运费价)等。在电话中，被告要求原告必须在2月14日当天对上述实盘报价予以确认。当天(即2月14日)下午，原告以传真方式向被告发出确认书，对被告方提出的全部要约予以明确的承诺，至此，双方的购销合同已在法律上正式成立。合同成立后，原告立即通知其委托单位北京市化工轻工总公司经营开发公司可以与加工厂家签订加工合同及租用储罐事宜。1996年2月29日上午，原告接到被告书面通知，在该通知中，被告首先承认已收到原告2月14日发出的确认书传真件，并承认在履约过程中由于韩国方面的原因，事情被“耽误”了，现在价格已经上涨。同时被告在该通知中提出了补救措施，但在随后的实施过程中，由于被告的原因，补救措施再次落空。由于被告未按其承诺履约，致使原告的进口委托单位陷入被动局面，因为原告的进口委托单位已和工厂签订了加工协议，这样只能从国内其他公司再找货源，但价格已涨至每吨人民币643．0元。由于被告违约，共给原告造成经济损失人民币1195201．20元，这笔损失包括：第一，因价格上涨后另行定货的损失为人民币961961．20元；第二，原告损失代理手续费人民币139944元；第三，原告应向进口委托方支付罚金人民币93296元。除此以外，原告因诉讼支付律师代理费人民币35860元，原告还支付了翻译费、诉讼费等。上述损失均因被告违约所致，故请求法院判令：
　　1．被告支付因违约给原告造成的经济损失人民币1195201．20元；
　　2．被告向原告支付律师费用人民币35860元；
　　3．被告支付诉讼费用(翻译费及诉讼费)。
　　开庭后，原告又向本院呈交了关于本案的书面补充意见书，着重阐明原、被告之间在1996年2月14日已就买卖2000吨苯乙烯一事形成合同关系。此后，系因被告违约不能供货，双方才就如何弥补此事进行过协商，而被告LG商事所提出的补救措施并非是新的要约，且在原告同意了被告提出的补救措施后，被告也未能按其所提出的补救措施履行，因此，对此争议被告应承担全部责任。
　　被告LG商事辩称：原告起诉状所述事实并不完整，隐瞒了重要事实。1996年2月14日，被告方工作人员以电话方式就韩国产2000吨苯乙烯的供货事宜向原告进行报价，原告同日以传真方式确认，至此，双方之购销合同依法成立。1996年2月29日，双方又就上述供货事宜再行协商，双方均同意就2月14日商定的供货事宜进行修改。3月1日，被告以传真方式向原告发出要约，但原告并未对此要约作出承诺，而是针对交货日期等事宜向被告发出新的要约，同时要求双方签订正式合同并由原告提出正式合同文本。对于原告这一新要约，被告经多方努力后无法作出承诺，故原、被告双方最终未就此事达成一致，亦未签订任何购销合同文本，此项重要事实，原告在起诉状中未提及。本案的关键在于，原告误将其3月1日向被告发出的新要约认定为是对被告要约的承诺，以为双方已达成购销合同，这完全是原告对合同和相关法律的错误认识和/或缺乏正确认识的结果。在双方并未达成生效合同的前提下，被告无任何违约责任可言，原告要求被告承担违约责任并赔偿其经济损失的诉讼请求，不存在任何事实和法律依据。
　　开庭后，被告LG商事的诉讼代理人向本院呈交了书面代理词，其代理意见的主要内容是：本案中并不存在依法成立的有效的国际货物买卖合同，因此，被告也就不应承担任何违约责任及赔偿责任，原告的诉讼请求缺乏合法及合理依据。
　　经审理查明：
　　一、本案原、被告之争议的产生经过
　　1996年2月9日物资公司与北京市化工轻工总公司经营开发公司(以下简称化轻经营公司)签订了《进口代理协议书》，该协议书中约定：化轻经营公司委托物资公司进口2000吨苯乙烯，到港日期是1996年4月1日至10日，价格为530～550美元/吨，代理手续费为CFR的1．5%，违约金为协议进口总额的1%。该协议还约定：如因违约而造成对方其他损失，则还应支付赔偿金。此后，物资公司即向LG商事驻北京的办事机构询价，LG商事驻北京的办事机构于1996年2月14日以电话方式向物资公司报价，同日下午，物资公司以传真形式予以承诺。至此，物资公司与LG商事之间的买卖关系已经确立，双方确定的具体条款如下：物资公司认购LG商事韩国产苯乙烯2000公吨，规格ASTM2827－88，到货期为1996年4月10日至4月15日，价格为USD560/MT(每吨560美元)，CNF(注：原文如此)湛江，付款方式为L/C AT STGHT (即期信用证)。
　　1996年2月29日，LG商事驻北京的办事机构给物资公司发来传真件，其主要内容是：因情况变化，已无法按原商定的条款供货，建议物资公司购买另一批苯乙烯，价格为575美元/吨，到货时间为4月1日。
　　1996年3月1日，物资公司给LG商事驻北京的办事机构发去传真称：“我司接受贵司USD575/MT，CFR湛江报价；我司将尽快拟好合同文本以供双方正式签约；请将ASTM2827－88项下之详细英文规格传给我们以便打印到合同文本上。”当天，LG商事驻北京的办事机构给物资公司发来传真称：“我方已按下列条件拿到货物：品名，苯乙烯单体；原产地，韩国；质量，ASTMD－2827－88标准；数量，2000公吨＋/－5%；价格，成本加运费中国湛江港船边交货价格，每吨575美元；付款方式，即期信用证；交货期，1996年4月1日/或左右到达湛江；昨天我方已通知你方，你方必须从4月1日起安排好岸边的储罐以便接货。我方将十分感谢你方对以上条件的书面确认。”同一天，即1996年3月1日，物资公司还给LG商事驻北京的办事机构发去另一份传真，并称：“关于2000吨苯乙烯单体，感谢贵方3月1日FAX报价，现正式确认如下：品名，苯乙烯单体；规格，ASTMD－2827－88；数量，2000MT＋/－5%；产地，韩国；价格，USD575/MT CFR ZHANJING，CHINA(注：原文如此)；到货期，1996年4月1日以后-1996年4月15日前；付款方式，L/C AT SIGHT即期信用证；另请贵方尽速办妥下列事宜：1．请将ASTMD-2827-88的详细英文规格列明并FAX给我方，以便做合同时使用。2．请尽力努力将到货期延到1996年4月8日!!!……。”
　　1996年3月5日，LG商事驻北京的办事机构给物资公司发来传真，其主要内容为：在3月1日下午北京时间4点40分收到你方确认，但是北京时间与韩国时间有一个小时的时差，即你方的确认是在韩国时间5点40分到达我处，由于没有在韩国工作时间5点30分以前收到你方要求在4月1日左右供货的确认，这批货已被卖掉了。
　　1996年3月6日，物资公司发传真给LG商事驻北京的办事机构称：“我司与湛江中美化工公司已签约定于4月中旬进货并加工聚苯乙烯，如届时原料不到，我司将赔偿工厂停工费、储罐轮空费等损失；现经我方努力，已找到两个货源：一、现代公司供应价格650美元/吨，按此价格计算，贵司应赔偿我司159．36万元人民币，折19．13万美元；二、永晖公司供应价格6450元人民币/吨，按此价格计算，贵司应赔付我司68．33万元人民币，折8．20万美元。选择哪个解决方案，请在3月7日北京时间12点前答复我司。”同日(即3月6日)，化轻经营公司与湛江中美化工公司签订“进料加工合同”。
　　1996年3月7日，物资公司给LG商事驻北京的办事机构发去传真称：“我司已办妥聚苯乙烯加工合同并交纳了加工费预付费。现有两点建议提请阁下关注并在3月8日12点之前答复：一、关于贵司建议的余姚1500吨现货，我们认为其中存在着诸多不利因素……。二、鉴于上述原因，我司建议贵司尽快决策，放弃余姚货源，采用永晖公司的供货，这样贵司只需赔偿差价损失8．2万美元。”
　　1996年3月8日，物资公司再次给LG商事驻北京的办事机构发去传真称：“鉴于永晖公司报价有效期限至今天中午12点时，请务必于此时限之前给我司以答复，否则，我司将不得不确认订购永晖公司之供货，差价损失部分亦不得不向贵司索赔。”
　　对于物资公司自1996年3月6日起所发给LG商事驻北京的办事机构的上述各份传真，LG商事均未予以正式答复。后物资公司曾就其损失的赔付问题与LG商事进行协商，但双方未能达成一致意见，物资公司遂诉至本院。
　　另查，化轻经营公司与北京永晖工贸发展有限责任公司(以下简称永晖公司)于1996年3月8日签订买卖苯乙烯的《工矿产品购销合同》。
　　二、原、被告双方举证情况及质证和认证结果
　　原告物资公司在起诉时，向本院呈交了如下证据：
　　(一)物资公司与化轻经营公司于1996年2月9日签订的《进口代理协议书》；
　　(二)1996年2月14日物资公司发给LG商事的传真件；
　　(三)1996年2月29日LG商事驻北京的办事机构发给物资公司的传真件；
　　(四)1996年3月6日化轻经营公司与中美化工公司签订的《进料加工合同书》；
　　(五)化轻经营公司与永晖公司于1996年3月6日签订的《工矿产品购销合同》。
　　在本院审理期间，原告物资公司又向本院呈交了如下补充证据：
　　(一)化轻经营公司购买苯乙烯的发票(共10张)；
　　(二)物资公司支付律师费用的收据；
　　(三)化轻经营公司要求物资公司赔偿的函件；
　　(四)1996年3月1日至3月8日期间物资公司与LG商事驻北京的办事机构之间的往来传真件；
　　被告LG商事在答辩时，向本院呈交了如下证据：
　　(一)1996年2月29日LG商事发给物资公司的传真件；
　　(二)1996年3月1日LG商事发给物资公司的传真件；
　　(三)1996年3月1日物资公司发给LG商事的两份传真件。
　　经庭审质证，双方当事人对上述证据所反映的事情经过均无异议，但对于1996年2月29日、3月1日双方互相发送的4份传真件所具有的法律意义持有不同的看法。物资公司认为，1996年2月29日LG商事发给物资公司的传真件，只是表明被告LG商事在自知违约后提出的补救措施，而1996年3月1日原、被告双方往来传真说明了双方就LG商事提出的补救措施已经协商一致，形成新的合同。LG商事则认为，在1996年2月29日LG商事发给物资公司的传真件中，LG商事已明示了变更原合同的意愿，而同年3月1日物资公司发给LG商事的两份传真件，表明了物资公司同意解除与LG商事原来已达成的买卖合同，同时又向LG商事提出了新要约。
　　经庭审质证，原、被告双方所呈交的证据均被本院认定具有证据效力。
　　本院认为，针对原、被告之争议及质证和认证的结果，对本案可作如下确认：
　　一、关于本案当事人之间是否存在买卖合同的问题
　　原告物资公司于1996年2月14日发给被告LG商事的传真件，因具备“承诺”的要素，且原、被告双方也均予认可，所以，该传真件是物资公司对LG商事此前有关要约的有效承诺，因此，原、被告之间于1996年2月14日就有关买卖2000吨苯乙烯一事，已协商一致，并确立了存在于原、被告双方之间的买卖合同关系。
　　二、关于本案当事人之间买卖合同的终止及是否有新的买卖合同产生的问题
　　(一)1996年2月29日，LG商事发给原告物资公司的传真件表明，LG商事在不能按约履行1996年2月14日其与物资公司确定的买卖合同时，试图经过协商与物资公司建立新的合同关系，同时终止双方已确立的合同关系，从而免去承担违约责任的风险。对于LG商事的这一期望，物资公司在3月1日发给LG商事的传真中已明确表示接受，并同时提出对于双方新确定的交货条件签订正式合同文本的要求。根据《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第七条第一款“通过信件、电报、电传达成协议，一方当事人要求签订确认书时，签订确定书时，方为合同成立”的规定，在物资公司已明确提出需签订正式合同文本的要求后，正式合同文本尚未签订的情况下，依据中国法律，不能认为双方已就重新协商的供货条款确立了对双方均有约束力的合同。但是，根据《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第三十一条第三项的规定，当事人双方经协商同意终止合同的，合同即告终止。因此，在物资公司明确表示接受LG商事提出的新的交货条件后，物资公司与LG商事此前于1996年2月14日已经确立的买卖2000吨苯乙烯的合同关系因双方意思表示一致而终止了。
　　(二)1996年3月1日，LG商事再次给物资公司发去传真件，从该传真件的内容看，符合要约的基本条件。因此，这份传真件属于一项新的要约。LG商事在这个要约中明确提出“到货时间为1996年4月1日/或左右”，而物资公司于当天回复时虽表示接受LG商事所提出的交货条件，但在交货时间上又提出了新的要求，即到货期为1996年4月1日以后至1996年4月15日前，显然，物资公司明确表示排除了4月1日到货和4月1日以前到货的交货时间。因此，物资公司3月1日的这份传真件，并不构成一项有效的承诺，而属于反要约，即仍然是一项新的要约。因为，一项有效的承诺，应是对要约的全部认可，而不能有任何实质性的丝毫改变。所以，到此时为止，物资公司与LG商事之间并没有形成新的买卖合同关系。
　　(三)从1996年3月5日被告LG商事发给原告物资公司的传真件中可以清楚地看到，LG商事误将物资公司1996年3月1日的传真认定为是对LG商事所发要约的“确认”，但如前所述，物资公司对于LG商事2月29日和3月1日传真件的答复，均不构成法律意义上的承诺。而LG商事以物资公司所发确认到达LG商事时已超过韩国工作时间，货已被卖掉，进而使LG商事无法供货而不能承诺的理由，是不能成立的。因为，LG商事于1996年3月1日所发要约中，并未明示承诺的期限。尽管LG商事上述理由不能成立，但客观上LG商事并未对物资公司1996年3月1日新要约予以承诺，因而，仍然不能认为在物资公司与LG商事之间已经产生了新的买卖合同关系。
　　三、关于原告物资公司之诉讼请求是否成立的问题
　　(一)原告物资公司提出，因被告LG商事违约，致使原告的委托人化轻经营公司不得不购进永晖公司的货物，而价格为每吨人民币6430元，高于被告承诺的560美元/吨(折合人民币为每吨5949．0194元)，这样化轻经营公司为购买2000吨苯乙烯，将多付货款961961．20元。尽管本案发生时，物资公司尚未向其委托人化轻经营公司支付这笔款项，但化轻经营公司已明确表示，将保留向物资公司追偿此笔货款差价的权利，因而，LG商事应承担此笔差价款。本院认为，由于原、被告之间于2月14日确立的买卖2000吨苯乙烯的合同关系已于1996年3月1日终止了，因此，物资公司的委托人化轻经营公司所称的，于1996年3月8日形成的“差价损失”，与LG商事无关，物资公司主张由LG商事赔偿这笔差价损失的理由显然不当，其该项诉讼请求不能成立。
　　(二)物资公司认为，由于LG商事违约，致使物资公司损失代理手续费人民币139944元，对此应由LG商事予以赔偿。本院认为，导致物资公司代理手续费损失的根本原因在于物资公司未能按约完成委托人化轻经营公司的委托事项，而物资公司之所以没有完成化轻经营公司的委托事项，系因物资公司在处理其与LG商事之间买卖关系时自身失误所致，且LG商事在处理此事的过程中，并未违法，故不应承担法律责任。同时，本院注意到，物资公司与其委托人化轻经营公司签订的《进口代理协议书》中确定的到货期为1996年4月1日至10日，价格为530-550美元/吨，而物资公司与LG商事于1996年2月14日确定的到货期为1996年4月10日至15日，价格为USD560/MT。因此，即使本案原、被告双方按照1996年2月14日合约履行，本案原告物资公司也没有按照其与委托人化轻经营公司签订的委托合同履行，从法律意义上讲，同样不能按约收取既定的代理手续费。
　　(三)关于物资公司所提应由LG商事承担物资公司应向化轻经营公司支付违约罚金人民币93296元之请求，本院认为，因物资公司未完成其委托人所委托之事项的原因系因物资公司自身行为所致，且LG商事在处理此事过程中并无违约之处，因而，此笔罚金不应由LG商事替物资公司承担，故物资公司的此项请求亦不成立。
　　(四)关于物资公司提出因诉讼而支付给律师代理费用人民币35860元，此款应由LG商事承担之请求，本院认为，由于原告的各项诉讼请求不能成立。故原告要求被告承担原告方因诉讼而支付的律师费用是没有法律依据的。
　　(五)物资公司还向本院主张由LG商事承担物资公司已支付的诉讼费用。对此，本院认为，依照《人民法院诉讼收费办法》的规定，诉讼费用应由败诉一方负担。因此，除非当事人双方以协商解决争议的方式息诉，可自愿就诉讼费用的负担达成协议，否则，人民法院将按照上述规定，依审判权确定诉讼费用(包括案件受理费)的负担问题。
　　综上，依照《中华人民共和国涉外经济合同法》第七条第一款，第三十一条第三项之规定，判决如下：
　　驳回原告北京市物资总公司的诉讼请求。
　　诉讼费16166元，由原告北京市物资总公司负担(已交纳)。
　　如不服本判决，原告北京市物资总公司可在本判决书送达之日起十五日内，被告LG商事可在本判决书送达之日起三十日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提交副本，并交纳上诉案件诉讼费16166元(开户行：工商行东铁营分理处，账号：144202－29，收款人：北京市第二中级人民法院)，上诉于北京市高级人民法院。在上诉期满后七日内，仍未交纳上诉案件诉讼费的，按自动撤回上诉处理。

审判长　　　杨小勇　
代理审判员　申小琦　
代理审判员　杨明婕　
一九九八年十二月二十一日
书记员　　　武子文　

评析：
　　本案为国际货物买卖合同纠纷。判决结构层次清楚，判决的实体内容充分体现了以理服人，以事实为依据、以法律为准绳的原则。该判决书在原被告提出的证据并经质证的基础上来认定事实，有充分的说服力。在此基础上，就双方当事人争议的法律问题、针对这些法律问题应当适用的法律以及为什么这样适用等，进行了充分的论述。在查明事实的基础上正确适用法律，并就此确定的当事人应承担的责任顺理成章。该判决书无论是对事实的阐述，还是对法律的引用，均是审判人员经过深思熟虑形成的，没有生搬硬套的痕迹。
　　该判决书在对证据的论证和分析上非常细致。首先，关于本案当事人之间是否存在买卖合同的问题，从判决书制作时我国法律规定和审判实践看，要约、承诺问题尚未引起足够重视。在这种情况下，该判决书从要约和承诺行为中的法律关系及法律责任出发，明确了本案当事人之间的法律关系和法律责任，是一个突破和创新。其次，解决本案当事人之间买卖合同终止是否有新的买卖合同产生的问题，关键在于对1996年2月29日、3月1日双方互相发送的四份传真件所具有的法律意义的认定。如果前一份传真不能构成要约，那么合同的成立就会因为欠缺要约过程而当然不成立；如果构成要约，则后一份传真可能会构成承诺。该判决书细致分析了前一份传真的内容，并认定该传真表明了原告要签订正式合同的意图，因此，即使原告该份传真构成承诺，双方之间的合同也只能在签订之时起成立。该判决书根据传真内容和当时的《涉外经济合同法》的规定，确认新合同在此时没有成立是正确的。该判决书对后一份传真同样进行了分析，该传真内容明确具体，清晰地表明了被告希望与对方订立合同的意图，只要对方进行确认，被告就会与对方签订合同，这符合要约成立的条件，是一个合法的要约。但原告在接到该要约后给被告所发的确认函却不能构成有效的承诺，理由在于该确认函因改变了交货时间而不符合承诺的构成要件。承诺不得对要约作出实质性的修改，在实质性条款上必须与要约内容保持一致。交货时间与当事人双方的利益关系重大，属于此要约的实质性条款。原告即对交货时间作出了修改，将交货时间延迟，这种对实质性条款的修改导致原告所作承诺的失效。因此，这里只有被告的要约，而没有原告对此要约的承诺，新合同没有成立。