Andras Szekany Mar 25, 2013:

nagyon elmegy a vita a lényeg mellet: A kérdés: "General terms and conditions for contracts involving delivery of goods" vagyis áruszállítási szerződés. A mai világban ezeket a szállításokat különböző szokványok rendezik. Ilyen az INCOTERMS, amit kontinensen közötti nemzetközi forgalomban használnak. Az USA-ban nemzetközinek nevezik azt is, ami kontinensen belüli, tehát belföldi, nyilván annak is vannak szokványai. Ha ma valaki szállítási szerződést köt, akkor ilyen szabályok (belföldön a PTK) vezetik a tollát. Ezért látom parttalannak a vitát - és részben meddőnek ...

Gusztáv Jánvári Mar 24, 2013:

Agreed with János

JANOS SAMU Mar 24, 2013:

Are you sure you are on the right track? I am still convinced that this is not about the return of goods purchased, but about the return of investment for said purchase. The performance risk applies to finding the required supply with the required quality, finding a supplier that can be worked with and the transport to deliver to supply. You will make your purchase only if you found them. To plan on damages, loss and destruction makes sense only with the freight company and no businessman in his right mind would sign a contract with a freight company without assuring that he is harmless in case of the failure of the freight company. The risk for damaged products being released by the seller goes against the seller under performance risk, but again counting on this scenario is highly unlikely from a solid business point of view, becaues it would be poor judgment on the side of the purchaser to select a supplier with dubious performance. The two risks described above go hand in hand in regular contracts. The return of any item is usually regulated by the warranty or guaranty provision of the contracts.

Gusztáv Jánvári Mar 24, 2013:

Does it make sense? Does it make sense to declare it's the purchaser's responsibility to pay for the purchased things? This seems to be more than evident that once I buy something I have to pay for it within the deadline, even if delivery has not been completed yet. Or am I missing something?

Simon Molnar (asker) Mar 24, 2013:

consideration received in return for consideration I think all this is quite simple: the expression might refer to the consideration that should be given by one party in exchange for the consideration received from the other party. So from the buyer's point of view, who has already paid for the goods and has not yet received it, buyer is bearing risk that the consideration from the seller that the buyer should receive _in return_ for his consideration will not arrive. So this _return consideration_ from the seller is at risk on the buyer's side.
Does this sound plausible?

Simon Molnar (asker) Mar 20, 2013:

delivery of goods It is a contract about delivering goods to the purchaser and the purchaser paying for the goods.

Gusztáv Jánvári Mar 20, 2013:

investment/financials or goods return? Do you know if the transaction and the highlighted portion governed by the contract is about financials or goods return? 'Cuse return may refer to return on investment and its associated risk, as well as the risk of returning goods to the supplier.