URPIB 2013
ORTHODOX EDITION 

Amended: 1st August 2012: Spelling Grammar Check .
Amended: 4th December 2012: Article 30 Added. 

UNIFORM RULES AND PRACTICE FOR INTERMEDIARIES AND BROKERS

Further Enhanced Internet and E-mail Trading Applications.
Author: Davide Giovanni Papa



© URPIB 2013
Created: 2005 Amended: 1st July 2012 Ratified: 1st August 2012

© URPIB Rules of Trade 2005 – 2011. Full Revision: 1st July 2012
Copyright: FTN Exporting Australia 1988 - 2012

URPIB 2013, Articles 1 – 30 Fully Defined

URPIB Article (1), Section 1-7
Definition of an Intermediary

  1. Under ‘URPIB Rules’, an ‘Intermediary’ may be defined as a ‘Buyer’, ‘Seller’, or 'Buyer and Seller' in the united form, when such an entity is acting on behalf of an ‘undisclosed Principal’.
  2. When an ‘Intermediary’ acts upon the united position, the said ‘Intermediary’ many also express his position as a ‘Principal of Agency’.
  3. An ‘Intermediary’ may also be defined as a ‘Representative’ of a ‘Principal’, by using appropriate terms of reference, such as ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ (SI), ‘Broker’ or ‘Agent’, but only when acting on behalf a ‘disclosed Principal’.
  4. It is an offence for any ‘Intermediary’, whether acting on behalf of a ‘disclosed’ or ‘undisclosed’ ‘Principal’, to wilfully and intentionally deceive, make false statements, supply false information and supply misleading information.
  5. A professional ‘Intermediary’ not acting on behalf of a ‘disclosed Principal’ is an entity conducting business as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ and ‘Principal’ in its own right.
  6. A ‘Representative’ of a ‘disclosed Principal’ is one who acts, in the short-term or long-term, under the express instructions of a named ‘Principal’, as guided by such, at any given time, as specific to each matter being enacted upon.
  7. An ‘Agent’ or ‘Broker’, acts upon a set of instructions unguided, within the bounds of such set of instructions, when representing a ‘disclosed Principal’ over the longer term.

URPIB Article (2) , Section 1 - 11
Overall Position of the Intermediary

  1. A ‘Buyer’ defines to mean when one is enacting with a ‘Supplier’.
  2. A ‘Buyer’ purchases goods from a ‘Supplier’, in ‘documentary’ form, without obtaining ‘possession’ of such goods.
  3. A ‘Supplier’ is one who ‘owns possession’ of the goods they are offering for sale.
  4. A ‘Seller’ defines to mean when one enacting with an ‘End Buyer’.
  5. An ‘End Buyer’ is one who ‘obtains possession’ of ordered goods, as ordered from, and purchased from a ‘Seller’.
  6. Both positions, as held at the same time, in where, each position is apparent as it pertains to the side of business being enacted upon by the individual.
  7. The said ‘side of business’, may also may be described in a manner to infer the ‘side of the fence’, in where one is trading upon or holding position in such, as it seems to all others.
  8. An entity working as an independent ‘middle person’, individually or in a ‘string Contract’, heading such, between two other ‘Principal’ entities, shall also be known as ‘Principal’, in peerage amongst others, as one holding ‘Principal of Agency’–in rem, as it seems to all others.
  9. All other ‘Principal’ entities, who are not acting as an ‘Intermediary’, in a Transaction being enacted upon, are in personam (a) the actual owner in possession of goods (or services being offered), also referred to as the ‘Supplier’ and (b) the person paying for the goods (or services sought) and taking possession of such– also referred to as the ‘End Buyer’.
  10. Anyone who is conducting commercial business personally applied between two other ‘Principals’ as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’, is defined in the general term to be an 'Intermediary' looking to conduct business for personal gains and profits.
  11. When commission payments are being sought, this type of ‘Intermediary’ is defined as a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’.

URPIB Article (3), Section 1 - 20 
Sourcing Intermediary (SI)

  1. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ best describes one or many, enacting in-between a ‘Seller and a Supplier’, or enacting in-between an ‘End Buyer and Seller’ at any given time, or at the same time.
  2. The first ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ (SI) next to the said ‘Seller or Buyer’ on the side of the Transaction being enacted upon, shall carry a special title under URPIB as ‘Primary Intermediary’ (PI) but only if the said ‘PI’ has disclosed that such is supported by a informed ‘Buyer/Seller’.
  3. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ is unable to claim, or earn commission payment, if they are not expressly attached to a ‘Principal’ assuring and protecting such a potential payment of any commission.
  4. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ holding only such a position, without attachment to a ‘Principal’, or attachment to a ‘string Contract’ supported by a ‘Principal’, is a flawed untenable position, in where such an ‘Intermediary’ has no scope to ensure commissions can be secured.
  5. Where a ‘Transaction’ is entered into, in where these Rules are not implied, said ‘Transaction’ is not supported by these Rules, in where the matters of the said Doctrine explicitly prevail.
  6. It is the duty of the ‘SI’, attached to a ‘URPIB Buyer/ Seller’, to ascertain that such is an informed URPIB practitioner who also intends to conduct business within the parameters of the FTN Exporting Doctrine of Trade for Intermediaries.
  7. The ‘Intermediary’ conducts business with ‘acceptable’ type commodities and not those products not allowed to be traded upon, as specified under these Rules (or in the manner not allowed).
  8. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, or anyone else, using these Rules may not imply or give inference that they are attached to a ‘Principal’ in any form, unless they have expressed permission to do so over the short-term, as it relates to one deal being enacted upon, or over the long term as per attachment conferred.
  9. The term ‘attachment’ is specific to these Rules, meaning that the ‘Intermediary’ is formally attached to, and working with a ‘disclosed’, informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’, following the edicts and virtues of the said Doctrine of association in the first instance, and these Rules in the second.
  10. An ‘Intermediary’ claiming to be acting for a ‘disclosed Principal’ must disclose such a ‘Principal’ upfront at the start of the Transaction, including anyone claiming Mandate-ship status.
  11. Any ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, (or any entity) attached to a ‘Principal’, must declare such a Representative status when acting for the said ‘Principal’, at all times, on all written correspondence and web site they own.
  12. A web site giving the impression that the ‘Intermediary’ is conducting business as a lone informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’, when in fact, such is replying upon and depending upon the expertise of another ‘Principal’ to close a deal, must in some form, no matter how small, disclose the said ‘Principal’ they reply upon on their web site.
  13. Any other entity not in support by attachment to an informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’, or declared ‘disclosed Principal’, is enacting upon a precarious, unsupported and flawed premise. Said premise, which is assumed to be ineffective, improper and unworkable.
  14. The ‘Principal of Agency’ shall, at all times, act in a honourable manner with its own attached ‘Intermediaries’ and with other ‘Principals’.
  15. Race, creed, lore, custom, political affiliation or religious beliefs play no part with the nature of business being enacted upon and that racial prejudice, or any assertions based on prejudicial matters, shall not be entertained nor tolerated by any ‘Principal’, or by those attached to such.
  16. Matters of ‘embargo’ are matters of Government and politics, and not individuals, in where, matters for Government in a repressed regime, are not matters related to individuals trading from such Countries, is the assumption.
  17. In where, an ‘Intermediary’ with good intent is trading from a Country where ‘embargo’ applies, secures goods from one Country where no ‘embargo’ applies, for selling to another where no ‘embargo’ applies, such may seek protection under these Rules and may be attached to a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ enacting and adhering to these Rules.
  18. The ‘Principal’ of a ‘string Contract’, shall at all times, protect the lawful interests of any person they are involved with unconditionally, in where such is providing, or has provided, valuable information which leads to the closing of a successful Transaction.
  19. The ‘Principal’ of a ‘string Contract’ shall not enter into unlawful business Transactions.
  20. An ‘unlawful’ business application is not the same in meaning, as applied, to the meaning of an 'illegal' business Transaction.

URPIB Article (4), Section 1 - 29 
Parties to a String Contract

  1. A ‘string Contract’ is defined as a party enacting in a group situation, as a whole, in the nature of business of buying and selling goods or services for gains or commissions, in where, one side of a deal commences with a ‘Supplier’ in possession of goods or services and ends with an ‘End Buyer’ willing to buy and take possession of such goods or accept services, in where everyone in between are defined as ‘Intermediaries’.
  2. A ‘string Contract’ on any one side of the fence, is a singled independent entity. Each member within the ‘string Contract’ is and independent entity. The whole ‘string Contract’ from ‘Supplier’ to ‘End Buyer’ is a single entity. All parts may seem to be the same entity, but each has their own application to rely upon and enact upon depending on the part of the ‘string Contract’ being addressed at any given time.
  3. A whole ‘string’ is just as important as each member forming such, is the starting premise assumed. Those in a ‘string’, who ‘earn’ more than others in the same ‘string’, do so because of added efforts made or need to be made and not because one person is deemed to be more important than others associated in the same ‘string Contract’.
  4. The ultimate strength of the ‘string Contract’ is dictated by the strength of the ‘live deal’ being enacted upon, of which the ultimate goal of ‘string’ formation becomes apparent for only such reason. All members of ‘string Contract’ must contribute in reaching the ultimate goal.
  5. Once the optimum strength of the ‘string’ formation has been initiated, it is the duty of the ‘Principal’ to ensure, ‘to the best of their abilities’, that all interests of each individual, forming the active ‘string Contract’ is fully protected and supported.
  6. All ‘Transactions’ involving a ‘string Contract’ must have 3 (three) ‘Principals’ apparent: the ‘Supplier’, the ‘Buyer and Seller’ in the combined form, as well as the ‘End Buyer’.
  7. A head of a ‘string Contract’, in control of a Transaction in a ‘string’ deal, as the head of the ‘string’ deal, is holding the combined position of ‘Buyer/ Seller’, is a 'Principal'.
  8. The term ‘union in trinity’, is specific in meaning, that even though 3 (three) said ‘Principals’ to a Contract may prevail, as it pertains to the commercial aspects of business application being applied, in where, the ‘meeting of minds’ of the transacting party has led to such a Contract formation and signing, in where, each said ‘Principal’ are independent entities bearing personal liabilities and obligations to the nature of business being applied, each bearing fiduciary or legal consequences of their own actions.
  9. ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ are not allowed to be a signatory of a Contract.
  10. The ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ may, or may not, appear on any ‘Quote or Offer’ of the ‘Principal’ or ‘Primary Intermediary’ they represent. In where, the discretion to apply such is for the ‘Primary Intermediary’ to apply in the first instance, in where, the ‘Principal’ is notified of such.
  11. In a scenario, whether or not other ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ are involved within a Transaction, the parties to a ‘string Contract’ are as follows (a) ‘Supplier’, with or without a ‘Mandated Agent’. (b) ‘Buyer and Seller’, with or without a ‘Primary Intermediary or Representatives’. (c) ‘End Buyer’, with or without a ‘Mandated Agent’.
  12. Where ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ are involved, the group to the Transaction to be implied, in similar mode: (a) ‘Supplier’ (b) ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ (one or many) (c) ‘Buyer/ Seller’ (middle person in control of the whole deal, the ‘Principal of Agency’) (d) ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ (one or many) (e) ‘End buyer’
  13. If a ‘Mandate holder’ has disclosed his ‘Principal’, or produced a written ‘Mandate-ship Agreement’, as issued by his claimed ‘Principal’, and if such a ‘Mandate-ship’ has been authenticated as being ‘genuine’, the said ‘Mandated Agent’ is treated as an ‘Agent of the Principal’, to which such is treated as if they are the ‘Supplier or End Buyer’ in a ‘string Contract’.
  14. The ‘middle person’, who leads a trading group of ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’, is also referred to as a ‘Buyer and Seller’ of goods being secured or offered, as well as ‘Principal of Agency’.
  15. A ‘Principal of Agency’ may confer ‘Mandate-ship’ of his Agency to authorised Representatives of such, who must disclose such a representation status, where such is specifically acting on behalf of his or her ‘disclosed Principal’, for one Transaction or when representation is ongoing.
  16. An attached or unattached entity, using the name of the ‘Principal’ to obtain a favourable position in a ‘Transaction’, for their own private benefit, is acting dishonourably. Likewise, a ‘Principal’ doing the same while using information provided by those attached directly, or indirectly, in stealth, is acting dishonourably.
  17. Once the name of a ‘Principal’ is used for the benefit of those associated with such, then the ‘Principal’ is heading any potential Transaction and is entitled to secure personal gains from such an association, and protect commission to those attached.
  18. An ‘unsupported’, informed or ill-informed, ‘Intermediary’, seeking attachment and support of an informed ‘URPIB Buyer/ Seller’, shall not seek attachment with any other ‘Buyer/ Seller’ until such has cancelled support of one, to take up support of another.
  19. As stated by the term 'informed', such a term signifies one who has studied the said Doctrine and agrees to adhere to these ‘URPIB Rules’. Such an ‘informed Intermediary’ has status over ‘ill-informed Intermediaries’.
  20. A ‘Primary Intermediary’ (PI), once declared, has status over all other ‘Intermediaries’ other than the ‘Principal’. Only the ‘Principal’ may confer the status of ‘Primary Intermediary’. A ‘Primary Intermediary’, once identified, is an ‘Agent of a disclosed Principal’; even if such is called upon by the ‘Principal’ to examine a potential ‘Transaction’ (for a share of allotted commission), such did not secure or initially was involved in at inception.
  21. All ‘Intermediaries’ seeking attachment of an informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’, must ‘step back’ to such and disclose information to a ‘Principal’ before such ‘Principal’ may entertain matters of first time ‘attachment’.
  22. Once first time ‘attachment’ is conferred, subsequent ‘attachment’ applies automatically whenever a ‘Principal’ accepts to service the inquiry of the ‘SI’, until such an ‘attachment’ is cancelled, whether implied or expressed, by the ‘Intermediary’ holding such attachment or by the ‘Principal’ conferring such.
  23. No cancellation of ‘attachment’, even if advised formally in expressed form, shall be made effective until all matters of any current business has been settled.
  24. The ‘Principal’ shall not rely upon or use any information surrendered, once an ‘attachment’ has been cancelled, other than in the manner specified herein.
  25. A ‘Principal of Agency’ bears legal responsibilities, liabilities and consequences for the acts applied by those attached to such, accordingly, the said ‘Principal’ may immediately unattached any entity failing to follow the directives of the ‘Principal’, if such a ‘Principal’ feels, for good specified reason, that others have placed the said ‘Principal’ in a legally precarious situation.
  26. Wilfully placing a ‘Principal’ in a ‘legally precarious position’ is a ‘dishonourable act’.
  27. Any ‘dishonourable act’ once clearly ascertained, allows a ‘Principal’ to (a) recover cost of any potential loss of gains (b) allows a ‘Principal’ to drop a ‘SI' from a ‘string’ formation (c) allows a ‘Principal’ to continually use information submitted (d) allows a ‘Principal’ not to collect and pay commission to such a ‘dishonourable entity’, in where, any such commission forfeited is shared amongst others in the same ‘string’ formation.
  28. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is not an “expert” of the ‘Product’ they sell and may become, in part, an “expert” of such by default. The ‘Supplier’ of a ‘Product’ is the “expert” of the goods they sell and is expected to ‘advise’ such ‘Product’ accordingly.
  29. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ of commodities, is an “expert” at the ‘buying and selling’ of such a ‘Product’ internationally, and the process required to enact such matter in a safe effective and appropriate manner, in where, such shall not advise an ‘End Buyer’ on matters of the actual ‘Product’ they are offering if unsure, but shall always advise properly, matters of ‘Procedure’.

URPIB Article (5), Section 1 - 16 
Stepping Back Applications

  1. An ‘informed Intermediary’ and ‘Principal of Agency’, as well as all those providing support or services to such, no matter the nature of ‘Agency type’ of business apparent, is one who has studied the said ‘Doctrine of Trade’ intently and has agreed to conduct business under the auspices of such a Doctrine, in where, such also supports the application of these Rules in the course of business they are plying.
  2. A ‘Supplier’ or ‘End Buyer’ are not bound by these ‘Rules’, but may be ostensibly bound by such due to the nature of business enacted upon.
  3. For the purpose of these Rules, a ‘Principal Buyer/ Seller’ is different from the other ‘Principal entities’ to a ‘string’ deal, in that, the defined ‘Principal’ shall only be able to proceed in a Transaction as a person holding and transferring Title, or leading Delivery Documents, of the goods being transacted upon, without ever taking actual or physical ‘possession’ of such goods.
  4. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ is not a ‘Principal’. ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ answer directly to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ heading a ‘string Contract’ or officially titled ‘Primary Intermediary’ (PI) representing such.
  5. A ‘Primary Intermediary’ answers to his ‘Principal’ heading Agency. All others in a ‘string Contract’ are answerable to the ‘Primary Intermediary’, if such is apparent in a ‘string’ deal.
  6. Where the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is advising his immediate ‘Primary Intermediary’, the ‘Primary Intermediary’ is responsible for advising all other ‘Intermediaries’ properly, on that side of the Transaction.
  7. All other said ‘Intermediaries’ invited to be a part of a ‘string Contract’ not holding ‘PI’ status or ‘Principal’ status, are defined as ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ (SI) outright.
  8. There cannot be an intermediate ‘Buyer’ and another intermediate ‘Seller’ acting as the single controlling entity in a ‘string Contract’.
  9. Two entities holding ‘Buyer/ Seller’ status cannot trade with each other unless one party ‘steps back’ to the other. The entity not holding supply steps back to the entity who does . (at their discretion to accept ‘stepping back’ process). The entity ‘stepping back’ is conferred ‘PI’ status for that one Transaction.
  10. Once one ‘Buyer/ Seller’ ‘steps back’ to another,the one ‘stepping back’ is conferred a honorary ‘PI’ status for the deal being enacted upon, as it relates to commission share, not effecting the secured position of the actual ‘PI’ of the ‘Principal’ and the work he is obligated to perform.
  11. The ‘Primary Rule’ amongst all others, when confusion is apparent on the matter of status, is settled once the entity ‘holding supply’ is identified and declared.
  12. A ‘Principal’ acting as ‘Buyer’, is acting in such a position to his ‘disclosed Supplier’. A ‘Principal’ acting as ‘Seller’, is acting in such a position to his ‘disclosed End Buyer’. As disclosed to that side of the deal being enacted upon with the ‘Principal’, in where, the undisclosed position applies thereafter when the buy/sell Transaction becomes apparent to all others involved in the same deal.
  13. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ cannot make an ‘Offer to Buy’ goods or ‘Offer to Sell’ goods, unless the matter of ‘Supplier’ and/ or matters of ‘End Buyer’ are first made fully apparent.
  14. Badly informed or flawed terms often seen in ‘Intermediary string deals’ such as amongst others: ‘LOI, RWA, ICPO, NCND, BCL, POP, PB, MPA, ASWP’ are not entertained by a practitioner of the said ‘Doctrine of Trade’ or ‘URPIB Rules’ unconditionally.
  15. In where, a combination of flawed ‘Procedures’ and correct or acceptable ‘Procedures’ are apparent, the ‘Intermediary’ may attempt to rectify the flawed part of any ‘Offer’ made, before proceeding upon the course of the looming Transaction, but only where the majority of information has been advised correctly in the first instance.
  16. An ‘Intermediary’ shall not give vital information to anyone producing a flawed ‘Offer’, or advice which may lead in converting an otherwise flawed ‘Offer’ into an effective ‘Offer’ by default, in where, matters of enabling ‘due diligence’ to apply on the original information given is circumvented.

URPIB Article 6, Section 1 - 16 
Matters of Sourcing

  1. An 'informed' entity who has become a “specialist” in sourcing ‘End Buyers’ and/ or ‘Suppliers’ as per the ‘FTN Exporting Doctrine’ is said to be an informed ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ (SI) is the assumption.
  2. The assumptions arrived of the ‘informed SI’ is based in the idea that such has become a “specialist” and is further defined as one who has become, over time, a very skilled and informed in the activity they have learned about, studied about, over a long period of time including the act of sourcing and the act of documentation production as it relates to the nature of business being applied at any particular time, inline with, and in support of,these ‘Rules’ and said ‘Doctrine’.
  3. An entity able to secure a ‘Principal’, but who produces bad or poorly applied documentation is not a 'skilled' SI.
  4. An entity unable to secure a ‘Principal’ but who procedures good clear well defined documentation is not a 'skilled' SI.
  5. An entity who has not personally purchased the Doctrine and studied it applications over the longer term is not a 'skilled' SI.
  6. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ not prepared to take up the mantle of a controlling middle ‘Buyer/ Seller’ and trades without the protection and guidance of a middle controlling trusted ‘Buyer/ Seller’ should not be trading.
  7. An ‘informed Sourcing Intermediary’ is treated with respect by the middle ‘Buyer/ Seller’ who, in turn, guides the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ as to the way in which a deal should be closed, but is not entitled to mentor the applicant in all matters of Procedures outside the Transaction being enacted upon at any given time.
  8. In where only one single SI is attached to a ‘Principal’, on either 'side of the fence' such is automatically conferred the position of PI and may remain in such a position at the discretion of the ‘Principal’ once conferred by such.
  9. Any ‘Primary Intermediary’ (PI) may secure such a status no matter where such is placed in an ‘Intermediary string’ as the ‘Principal’ selects such at his discretion, based of skill and efforts already displayed. A ‘Principal’ must not confer the PI status lightly.
  10. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ may confer with other like-minded peers in securing information about the honourable status of ‘Principal’ they are intending to seek attachment with.
  11. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is well versed in ‘Procedures’ and has chosen ‘Intermediaries’ who are similarly well informed and able to verify the proficiency and good intent of the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ and vice versa.
  12. All ‘informed URPIB Intermediaries’ shall trade using trademark ‘Rules of Delivery and Banking’ as defined by the owners International Chamber of Commerce, (ICC) Paris, France as currently applicable publications as offered under latest ‘Incoterms’ or ‘UCP Banking Rules’ at any given time.
  13. An ‘informed Sourcing Intermediary’ on the other hand, shall be treated as a “specialist” in the realm of practice, once such expertise has been demonstrated to an informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’, who shall, at their discretion, consider attachment of the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ to the ‘Principal’, in where, the ‘Principal’ closes upon the Transaction bought to bear by a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ with good and honourable intent and inline with these Rules.
  14. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is not entitled to, nor have obligation to guide or assist anyone, unless such is reasonably informed of basic ‘Procedures’ as per said ‘Doctrine’ to begin with.
  15. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall not attempt to trade on his own, once accepting information from another ‘Intermediary’, or where appropriate, with other trusted associated attached ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ who trust the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ implicitly accordingly, any e-mail giving a positive reply to an inquiry of a SI implying or advising directly that an attachment is in place, shall ensure that good and honourable intention apply all times and that above all else that ‘Principal’ shall ensure that the interests of the temporarily of fully attached ‘Intermediary’ is protected at all times.
  16. Accepting viable advice of a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, whether such is informed or not, is an acceptance of attachment for the nature of business in hand or yet to be formed.

URPIB Article 7, Section 1 - 26 
Electronic Irrevocable Payment Guarantee ‘eIPG’ (Commissions)

  1. A ‘Principal of Agency’ may conduct business alone or may conduct business with those he or she is attached with, in doing so, the ‘Principal’ shall agree to the following matter of protecting the interests of those attached.
  2. Any e-mail giving advice or assistance provided to any ‘Intermediary’ after first contact is made, in where, the ‘Principal’ has indicate an interest to the inquiry being made, is prima facie evidence that a ‘Form of Attachment’ (FOA) and ‘eIPG’ is in force, or the Transaction that may eventuate from this interaction once valuable, worthy and viable information has been released to the ‘Principal’.
  3. ‘eIPG’ means electronic transmission by e-mail, to imply to an ‘Intermediary’ that ‘Payment Guarantee’ of commission, once earned, is automatically conferred, now replaces hardcopy issuance of the standard IPG issuance application under these ‘Rules’.
  4. Any e-mail giving advice as provided by, or to, a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ after first contact is made, in where, the ‘Principal’ declares to indicate no interest in said inquiry, is a rejection of the inquiry and of ‘automatic attachment’ as it pertains to the relevant inquiry made at that time, even if valuable information is submitted after such a rejection has taken place. Silence of reply by a ‘Principal’ to an SI making an e-mail inquiry is rejection of the inquiry.
  5. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ shall not disclose confidential information to an informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’ unless ‘attachment’ is first conferred or implied.
  6. A positive reply to an e-mail, as provided by a ‘Principal’, infers ‘temporary attachment’ is in place only for the inquiry in-hand and is considered a ‘test’ case.
  7. Temporary ‘attachment’, for that one inquiry, leading to a Transaction or not, in where, once a ‘Principal’ moves forward on such an inquiry, via advice made to indicate such, as applied by any e-mail served, confers all the obligations of the ‘Principal’ to that ‘SI’ as it would apply to any fully attached applicant.
  8. A ‘test’ case is an application initiated by a ‘Principal’ to gauge if the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ has good trading skills.
  9. Ongoing e-mails for another inquiry, to do with the potential of a looming Transaction, confers ‘attachment’ for each other Transaction thereafter, if the initial testing of a new applicant, such a test has produced positive results.
  10. Idle chatting in general matters is not considered an ‘attachment’.
  11. The ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, once receiving a positive reply via e-mail from one ‘Principal’ they have contacted by e-mail, shall ask the ‘Principal’ for a ‘Transaction Code’.
  12. The ‘Principal’ shall provide a ‘Transaction Code’, to which such is attached to the information being surrendered by the SI, in where, attachment and protection of all matters of commission is instantly apparent until failure or success of the transaction has eventuated.
  13. A ‘Transaction Code’, bearing the e-mail address of the ‘Principal’, is empirical evidence that attachment was conveyed and in place before any worthy or valuable information was surrendered. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall practice constraint in only accepting good information from any e-mail inquiries after considering such intently.
  14. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, seeking attachment with a ‘Principal’, is considered a loyal, informed, skilled and honourable trader when enacting with such a ‘Principal’, and vice versa.
  15. A loyal trader, is one that shall not, under any circumstances, discuss matters of business or advice personally given by his ‘Principal’ to any other entity, including other ‘Intermediaries’ in the same ‘string Contract’ or other ‘Principals’, and shall ensure that while attachment is in force and when attachment is no longer in force, that all information given to the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, by his ‘Principal’, is confidentially held at all times.
  16. As ‘attachment’ is conferred on good faith, such ‘attachment’ equally can be revoked on good faith, and without reason, but not when any commission payment is due.
  17. Said ‘attachment’ cannot be revoked while a ‘Transaction’ is alive and in progress. An ‘SI’ who is no longer attached to a ‘Principal’, who previously while attached, did provide valuable sourced information, which is later is used by a ‘Principal’, automatically attaches the ‘SI’ to the ‘Principal’, in where, all interests of such are protected and secured by the ‘Principal’ for the benefit of the ‘SI’.
  18. The ‘Principal’ using information or holding benefit of a ‘SI’ no longer attached or, in where, after the deal has closed, and attachment was lost, must make all efforts over a ‘long period of time’ to find such a ‘SI’ and deliver such a benefit to such. A ‘long period of time’ is defined as 6 months from the time such benefit was secured.
  19. It is the obligation and responsibility of the ‘SI’ to inform the ‘Principal’ of contact change and change of address.
  20. ‘URPIB’ accepts the ideal behind the hardcopy ‘IPG’ (Irrevocable Payment Guarantee) issuance protocol, but does no longer endorses, nor supports the attributes of such, and prefers the ‘eIPG’ as the ‘primary protocol’.
  21. Whether an ‘IPG’, in written hard copy form is in place or not, URPIB no longer supports the idea of these kind of pay orders, in any form, are a valid ‘primary application’, in where such mostly conveys an untenable assurance that the interest of the ‘Intermediary’ is ‘guaranteed’ if a successful deal is closed due to ‘assistance’ given by a ‘SI’ to ‘Principal’ and that any written ‘IPG’ which are issued, do not guarantee that payment will follow is the standing assumption that the ‘SI’ makes.
  22. The promise ‘to pay’ commission is not a supporting premise to the ideal that once such commission is ‘earned’ such commission will be paid. The ‘Intermediary’ looking to secure commission, may only assume that commission is payable unconditionally, if efforts made by such has led to the closing of an import-export Transaction, producing a gross gain to the ‘Principal’.
  23. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must act in an honourable manner when using the services of any entity providing valuable viable information which leads to the closing of a successful Transaction, including securing commissions for all those who have assisted a ‘Principal’ in closing upon a successful ‘Transaction’, and payment of such within 7 (Seven) days of securing said commission(s) unconditionally and without recourse, as an internet e-mail application as defined herein.
  24. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is no longer required to issue a formally written ‘IPG’, in where, such eventuates, such is issued as per the ‘FTN Exporting Doctrine’ as applied at the sole discretion of the issuer as a private Agreement. The said written past ‘IPG’ protocol has support in part, in matters of the current ‘eIPG’ protocol now being supported under these ‘Rules’.
  25. Current URPIB ‘eIPG’ protocol is designed to save time and effort, in where ‘ill informed Intermediaries’ not understanding the ‘Doctrine’ and do not agree with such ‘eIPG’ e-mail applications should not be seeking ‘attachment’ of a informed URPIB endorsed ‘Principal’.
  26. The relevant parts of the summary, offered at the end of these ‘Rules’, also forms part of these ‘Rules’.

URPIB Article 8, Section 1 - 15 
Mandated Entities

  1. ‘Mandated Entity’: A person who holds ‘special permission’, verifiable by ‘written authority’, to act on behalf of a ‘Principal’ and who has offered proof of claimed ‘Mandate ship’ on request, to anyone transacting in a ‘string Contract’ who is attached to such a ‘Principal’.
  2. An official ‘Mandated Agent’ obtains their ‘own commission’ from their respective ‘Principal’, and has no part or share in ‘Intermediaries’ protected commission.
  3. A ‘genuine Mandate holder’ does not ask for payment of goods with a ‘transferable financial instrument’ and must be prepared to accept only a ‘restricted financial instrument’.
  4. A person holding the position in a ‘string Contract’ next to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’, is not a ‘Mandate holder’ to that ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ simply by virtue of the position he or she holds in the ‘string Contract’ or ‘Intermediary’ chain, unless such holds ‘written documentation’ which verifies his or her ‘Mandate-ship’, which in-turn, confirms his or her ‘authority’ in being able to sell or buy goods ‘on behalf’ of such said named ‘disclosed Principal’, offering goods they physically own or taking physical possession of goods they intend to buy.
  5. A person who claims to be something that they are not, is acting with ‘bad’ or ‘dishonourable intent’ and should be avoided at all times.
  6. ‘Intermediaries’ must never trade with a person “claiming” to be a ‘Mandate holder’ who fails to ‘disclose’ his or her verifiable ‘Principal’.
  7. Formal ‘verification’ of the ‘Mandate-ship’ must be provided when requested by any ‘Intermediary’, and in particular, when requested by the ‘Primary Intermediary’. Verbal confirmation and verifications are not acceptable.
  8. Proof of the ‘Mandate-ship’ must be supplied ‘in writing’ and bear the name, address and contact telephone number of the ‘Principal’ they represent.
  9. A person claiming to be a ‘Mandate holder’ and who refuses to ‘verify’ his ‘authority’ shall be treated as not being a ‘Mandate holder’.
  10. Making claims of ‘Mandate-ship’, which later prove to be false, shall bear consequences in that; all ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ in a ‘string Contract’ may take a vote to cut the false ‘Mandate holder’ out of the Transaction, without risking ‘claim of circumvention’ by the ‘Intermediary’ in question.
  11. If it becomes apparent, after the identity of the ‘Supplier’ or ‘End Buyer’ has been revealed, that the claimed ‘Mandate holder’ was not genuinely holding the ‘Mandate-ship’ as claimed, then all ‘Intermediaries’ in that group may vote to eject the false ‘Mandate’ from the group/peers and continue with the Transaction.
  12. No option exists for a true ‘Mandate holder’ to refrain from ‘disclosing’ his ‘Mandate-ship’ once he has made such a claim of ‘authority’.
  13. ‘Delegatus non Potest Delegare’. A ‘Mandated Intermediary’ cannot ‘mandate’ another ‘Intermediary’ to do his bidding/work.
  14. URPIB recognises the position for the true ‘Mandate holder’, but declares that such a holder are not commonly found in string deals and that ‘due diligence’ on the matter must prevail before accepting any claim made by a declared ‘Mandate holder’.
  15. A person, once a ‘Mandated’ position is ascertained, is acting on behalf of a ‘disclosed Principal Supplier’ or ‘End Buyer’ and as such is treated as a ‘Principal’.

URPIB Article 9, Section 1 - 17 
Ostensible Authority

  1. A ‘Principal Buyer/ Seller’ needs only to declare his status on formal stationary/ letterhead to show the intent of the trader’s position.
  2. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is also an ‘Intermediary’ but with many more obligations, liabilities and legal requirements placed upon him than those attached as ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’.
  3. ‘Informed Intermediaries’ are allowed to trade on behalf of a ‘disclosed Principal’ or on behalf of an ‘undisclosed Principal’.The ‘undisclosed position’ is the most preferred position.
  4. When an ‘Intermediary’ acts on behalf of a ‘disclosed Principal’, then the ‘Intermediary’ acting as the ‘Buyer/Seller’ must disclose the full name, address and contact information of the ‘disclosed Principal’ on his letterhead under his own title. This position, although allowed, is the least preferred trading position.
  5. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is allowed to act on behalf of a ‘disclosed Principal’ or ‘undisclosed Principal’, assuming the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is in ‘direct contact’ with the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ and not another ‘Intermediary’.
  6. A ‘Principal of Agency’, must at all times, secure the assurance for the supply of goods from a ‘disclosed verifiable Supplier’ first, in the form of a valid written ‘Offers’, before they attempt to sell such goods directly to a ‘disclosed End Buyer’. Without obtaining such a type of said ‘Offer’, no ‘Ostensible Authority’ exists to buy such goods; therefore no ‘Ostensible Authority’ to sell such goods exists.
  7. A ‘Buyer/Seller’ not securing a written, valid, signed ‘Offer’ from a ‘disclosed Supplier’, has no goods to sell to any ‘End Buyer’.
  8. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ clearly indicating they are offering goods to an ‘End Buyer’, in where no ‘Offer’ from a ‘Supplier’ is apparent, is acting illegally, dishonourably and fraudulently.
  9. A ‘Buyer/Seller’ who makes an ‘Offer to Sell’ goods, via a ‘string Contract’, that have not been ascertained, with the intent to source such goods after an ‘End Buyer’ has been sourced, is acting illegally, dishonourably and fraudulently.
  10. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must not disclose his ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’, in any Transaction, before any ‘financial instrument’ is accepted.
  11. The disclosure of any ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’, to each other or to their competitors, is not allowed under any circumstances, prior to collection being successfully made or deposit being lodged, and may be ‘disclosed’ after such events have become apparent if no mention has been made by a ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ that such disclosures are not allowed after the Transaction has closed.
  12. If the closing of a deal is apparent, no party in the said the deal is allowed to ‘disclose’ such dealings or parties to such a deal, to those not involved in such a deal, on the side on the deal apparent, and must ensure that all such matters remain ‘strictly confidential’ at all times.
  13. In every case, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must not disclose the ‘Principal’ on one side of the deal to the other side of the deal, as it related to a ‘string Contract’.
  14. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ bears consequence for revealing another ‘Principal’, held in trust, which leads to ‘circumvention’ of the ‘Intermediaries’ in the group he is heading and protecting.
  15. Any ‘Intermediary” ‘attached’ to a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ bears consequence for revealing another ‘Principal’ or matters of the deal being enacted upon within a ‘string Contract’, which leads to ‘circumvention’ of the ‘Intermediaries’ in the group he or she is a part of.
  16. If it is later discovered that ‘SI’ has ‘disclosed’ information to another party, once such disclosure is given ‘in trust’ of an ‘informed Principal’, the ‘Principal’ has the right not to pay any commissions to the dishonourable trader, should a Transaction later close in where loss of the protective measures as offered under ‘sanctuary’ shall also prevail.
  17. All information provided by a ‘SI’ to a ‘Principal Buyer/ Seller’, whether attached to such or not, is implied to be given as an ‘assignment’.

URPIB Article 10, Section 1 - 8 
Right to Sell

  1. The ‘Principal’ will observe and be governed by the Laws of their domiciled Country, and/ or the Country from which they are trading, whichever is applicable.
  2. Ignorance of the domestic Law is no defence and ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’.
  3. An ‘Intermediary’ who trades under the premise of ‘acting’ on behalf of an ‘undisclosed Principal’, (and where the truth and facts about a particular Transaction have been hidden from a ‘Principal’), shall bear full consequences of his own doing and cannot rely as a defence against legal action, that they are ‘ignorant of the Law’ as it pertains to ‘Agency’ or the position from which he was attempting to trade.
  4. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall not intervene in, or take over, a Transaction he was not involved in from the beginning.
  5. If an ‘Intermediary’ has acted in accordance with the instructions of his ‘Principal’, prior to entering a legally binding situation, the ‘Intermediary’ may also act on behalf of an ‘undisclosed Principal’, if allowed to do so under instruction of their ‘Principal’, then such in effect does so without risk of legal consequences.
  6. This is the only status that the ‘Intermediate Buyer/ Seller’ must achieve in order to ‘offer and resell’ the secured goods before offering them to potential ‘End Buyers’.The ‘right to resell’ occurs at the point when the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ has a ‘Quotation’ from a ‘Supplier’. Securing the funds for the purchase is now considered the most important aspect of the Transaction.
  7. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ not heading the deal, cannot be expected to and is not obliged to, accept to trade on a deal as started by others.


URPIB Article 11, 1 - 17 
In-House ‘OTS’ and ‘RFQ’ Applications

  1. An 'OTS' is a FTN Exporting created ‘in-house’ application and stands for "Offer to Sell."
  2. Such an application is specifically used when ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ are attached to a ‘Principal’.
  3. An ‘Offer to Sell’ goods from a ‘Supplier’, as secured by a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, must only be from a genuinely ascertained ‘Supplier’.
  4. The ‘Supplier’ provides a proper ‘Offer’ to the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, who in turn conducts ‘due diligence’ on the information, on the internet, and if all details seem valid and proper, in that a genuine ‘Supplier’ is offering such goods, the ‘SI’ fills in all details of such an ‘Offer’ onto an ‘OTS’ form and follows through with information missing on the original ‘Offer’ made until all relevant details of the goods on ‘Offer’ are apparent on the ‘OTS’.
  5. The ‘OTS’ is then sent, by the ‘SI’, to his ‘PI’ or his ‘Principal’.
  6. As per ‘URPIB Rules’, an ‘Intermediary’ that knowingly provides false information to a ‘Principal’, bears legal responsibilities and consequences of their actions- including presenting a false ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’.
  7. A 'RFQ' is a FTN Exporting created ‘in-house’ application and stands for "Request for a Quote".
  8. Such an application is specifically used when ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ are attached to a ‘Principal’.
  9. An ‘Offer to Buy’ goods or source goods, as asked for by an ‘End Buyer’, as secured by a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, from only a genuinely ascertained ‘End Buyer’.
  10. The ‘End Buyer’ provides a proper ‘Offer to Procure’ to the ‘Sourcing Intermediary’, who in turn conducts ‘due diligence’ on the information, on the internet, and if all details seem valid and proper, in that a genuine ‘End Buyer’ is seeking to buy said goods, the ‘SI’ fills in all details of such a purchase query onto an ‘RFQ’ form and follows through with information missing on the original ‘Offer’ made until all relevant details of the goods being sought is apparent on the ‘RFQ’.
  11. The ‘RFQ’ is then sent by the ‘SI’ to his ‘PI’ or ‘Principal’.
  12. An ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ form are ‘in-house’ applications as used by a ‘Buyer/ Seller’, at their discretion, in a format as provided to their own ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’. A ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ must not forward such forms to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ to fill in and return.
  13. A ‘Supplier’ must provide an ‘Offer’. The ‘’Intermediary’ holds the original ‘Offer’ and fills in an ‘OTS’ and declares such, with all the required information sought on such. The ‘OTS’ is then sent to the ‘Principal’ they are attached to for further consideration. It is an ill informed and unprofessional act to ask a ‘Supplier’ to fill in an ‘OTS’.
  14. An ‘End Buyer’ must ask for an ‘Offer’. The ‘Intermediary’ holding the original request fills in an ‘RFQ’ form and declares such, with all the required information sought on such. The ‘RFQ’ is then sent to the ‘Principal’ they are attached to for further consideration. It is an ill informed and unprofessional act to ask an ‘End Buyer’ to fill in an ‘RFQ’.
  15. A ‘Principal’ conducting direct business with a ‘Supplier’, asks for a full ‘Offer’ and does not require a ‘OTS’, in where, such is a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ application when delivering valuable information to a ‘PI’ or ‘Buyer/ Seller’ heading a ‘string’ deal.
  16. A ‘Principal’ conducting direct business with an ‘End Buyer’ asks for a full ‘Purchase Offer’ and does not require a ‘RFQ’.
  17. The ‘RFQ’ and ‘OTS’ application is an application which assists the ‘Principal’ in being able to do his part in an ‘informed’ manner. It’s also evidence of information held, as secured by a ‘SI’, and contributes as supporting evidence of the involvement of a ‘SI’ to a particular Transaction and directly reinforces the ‘eIPG’ application. Such documents, once provided to a ‘Principal’, are also evidence of wrong doings, should the ‘Principal’ later, fall foul of the law, in where the ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ will cause the blame to shift from the ‘Principal’ to the ‘SI’ who provided information which later proves to be false.

URPIB Article 12, 1 - 6 
Stepping Back 

  1. ‘Stepping back’ Procedures occur at the point at which the ‘End Buyer’, ‘Buyer/ Seller’ and the ‘Supplier’, at any given time, will need to deal directly with each other. Both sides are independent of each other: one ‘side of the deal’ does not become involved with the other ‘side of the deal’, as both sides of the deal start and end with the middle controlling ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  2. ‘Stepping back’ Procedures is about the ‘Principal’ being able to transact with another ‘Principal’ quickly, when need be accordingly; as it applies to an ‘attached’ or ‘unattached’ ‘Intermediary’, disclosure of the ‘Principal’ must be apparent at the start of the Transaction before ‘Offers’ are examined or issued.
  3. A ‘Principal of Agency’, acting as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ in a ‘string Contract’, is not obligated to consider any other protocol or any other precondition prior to accepting a ‘RFQ’ or ‘OTS’, which must have, amongst other things; the ‘Supplier’ or ‘End Buyer’ fully ‘disclosed’ on such.
  4. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’, controlling the Transaction, is obligated to protect, secure and pay all ‘Intermediaries’ involved in any particular Transaction on both sides of a pending deal, once the business has been successfully concluded. If a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is claiming to hold the middle controlling position, his services to protect the commission of ‘Intermediaries’ involved on both sides of the Transaction is ‘automatically conferred’ once a properly formatted ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ is advised.
  5. To appease the ‘stepping back’ process in matters of circumvention, as to show good intent in that the ‘Principal’ is prepared to 'support ' the ‘SI’ on the disclosed Transaction being attempted upon, said ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must allow the named entity offering a valid ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ to take on the role of a ‘Primary Intermediary’ when attached to the ‘Principal’, in where, all documents pertaining to the deal in hand travels to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ via the named ‘Primary Intermediary’ and vice versa, back to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ until failure or success of the deal is recorded.
  6. The ‘PI’ as right to witness and participate in the event of the Transaction, once a valid ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ has been surrendered. No name of the ‘SI’ is allowed to appear on the actual Contract once released, but such may still be privy to and enable such a Contract to be passed to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’, and vice versa, as a ‘representative’ of the ‘Principal’.

URPIB Article 13, 1 - 10 
Chain of Command

  1. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is the ‘controlling entity’ of the whole ‘Intermediary Group’. All declared ‘Agents’ of the ‘Principal’ have the next associated status. The ‘Primary Intermediary’ (PI), the immediate ‘Associate’ next to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is second in command. The (PI) adjacent to the ‘End Buyer’ is next in line, and then finally there are the ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ who do not have any defined role in the actual closure of the trade.
  2. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is a primary ‘Principal’ with special skills and capabilities that enable him to be able to close a complex import-export Transaction.
  3. All other ‘Intermediaries’ assisting the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ are ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ (SI), except for ‘declared’ associated ‘Agents’ of the ‘Principal’, while such association is apparent.
  4. If no ‘honourable, trusted & informed’ ‘URPIB Buyer/ Seller’ is evident in the ‘string Contract’, then all the other ‘Intermediaries’ cannot, and should not, expect to close a deal and earn the commissions implied therein. Any attempts to do so means that there is a strong threat of circumvention should such a Transaction occur without the use of the said ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  5. The first major step in the formation of an ‘Intermediary’ ‘string Contract’, is when, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ communicates with his immediate ‘PI’ on either ‘side’ of the deal. The ‘PI’ informs all ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ (SI) as to the ‘Procedure’ required for ‘stepping back’. The ‘PI’ secures details of all the commissions that are to be paid and then the ‘Intermediaries’ ‘step back’ to expose the ‘Primary Intermediary’ next to the end ‘Principal’.
  6. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must obtain the ‘clear path’ with assistance of a ‘PI’ from both sides of the deal, if necessary. If this is not possible, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall refrain from continuing with the trade in question.
  7. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must obtain the controlling position with honest and honourable intent, and without deceit or misleading statements, or no deal is said to be possible.
  8. A person holding a position as a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ in a ‘string contract’ is unable to earn commission without the presence of a trusted and informed ‘URPIB Buyer/ Seller’ in the deal. If faced with this scenario, the nominated middle ‘Buyer/ Seller’, if secured, can only attempt to use the virtues of the ‘IPG’ to get all parties on both sides to expose their ‘Principals’. This must only be attempted if there is cogent evidence that the end ‘Principals’ exist.
  9. All ‘Intermediaries’, in particular ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’, learning the business and who are not confident enough to take the position of ‘Buyer/ Seller’, must either seek to attach themselves to, or secure the services of, another ‘Intermediary’ who is a trusted and highly competent person able to transact in the position as a ‘URPIB’ informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  10. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ who receives information via ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ is then obligated to protect all ‘Intermediaries’ interests in the Transaction being attempted at all times regardless of whether an ‘IPG’ is in force or not.

URPIB Article 14, 1 - 30
Commission Payment Matters

  1. Payment of commission is derived from the price offered, of goods being sold, in a ‘string’ deal based. The ‘Principal’ earns his gains from the action of buying goods from a ‘Supplier’ as ‘Buyer’ at one price, to which such sells such goods as ‘Seller’ at another price to an ‘End Buyer’.
  2. Matter of ‘commission payment’ and ‘rates’, are very private confidential matters.
  3. No ‘commission payment’ earned is allowed to be openly disclosed online on any web site, or to any person in any form whatsoever, including those in the same trading group from which the commission was derived from, for a period of 5 years after earned, unless the Principal allows such disclosure to prevail in writing.
  4. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is not obligated to disclose the full purchase price of goods offered, in where the full actual gain applied on the ‘Transaction’ becomes apparent when trading alone or with others who are assisting the ‘Principal’.
  5. The ‘Principal’ may declare a whole commission offered to any given side, to a ‘PI’ or such may offer a personal individual ‘commission rate’ to any ‘Intermediary’ assisting such when no ‘PI’ is apparent.
  6. Once ‘PI’ is apparent or declared, then such a ‘PI’ is given one single ‘commission rate’, from which the ‘PI’ obtains his ‘own commission’ from and in where others attached to the ‘PI’ are allocated a share as well.
  7. A ‘PI’ shall be entitled to keep the biggest share of any ‘commission’ offered and allocate a share from such a rate, to those attached - as he sees fit.
  8. As he sees fit, depending upon premise of “who assists the most shall be entitled to a better share rate to those who assist the least”.
  9. The rate being protected is the ‘offered rate’ and may not actually define or reflect the actual gain being sought or actually secured by the ‘Principal’. The ‘offered’ ‘commission rate’, once given, as per the issuance of an ‘IPG’ or implied in an ‘eIPG’ application, is the ‘minimum rate’ being assured.
  10. The ‘minimum rate’ assured to each ‘SI’ by the ‘PI’ is the guaranteed rate of payment. The whole amount assured to the ‘PI’, is allowed a tolerance factor of -/+ 10 percent. The ‘PI’ guarantees on behalf of his ‘Principal’ only the ‘minimum rate’ he has assured to others.
  11. The ‘PI’ shall ensure to allow the tolerance factor to the whole rate given to such, when the ‘PI’ allocates a portion of the whole rate to each ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ assisting the ‘PI’.
  12. The ‘PI’ guarantees the minimum assured rate before accepting the submission of information.
  13. All rates are paid once the Transaction and said delivery has successfully closed, with in 7 days of such. The minimum rate offer is the rate paid once only on a single successful delivery or when a revolving Transaction is apparent as per each successful delivery.
  14. From this offered rate as securing his share, the ‘PI’ allots ‘as he sees fit’, a fair commission rate payable to each ‘SI’ depending upon the contribution and efforts made by such enacting in the ‘string Contract’.
  15. Gross profits portion applied to the unit price may also be described as an ‘Operational Expense’ (OPX).
  16. The portion allotted as commission is allotted as ‘gross’, in where, payment is made ‘net’ less all bank charges and fee’s when payment is initiated.
  17. No change of banking details, names or e-mail address is allowed, once submitted, for matter of commission payments.
  18. These ‘Rules’ are wholly supportive for non-break cargo shipments in the first instance, and FCL in the second instance.
  19. As it applies to a ‘PI’ working both ‘sides of the fence’, so shall it apply to any ‘SI’ found on both ‘side of the fence’ in relation to ‘commission payments’, in where a ‘PI’ once being identified as being apparent on both ‘side of the fence’ such shall be given a larger appropriate commission whole share.
  20. There is no breach of conditions related to disclosures ‘from one trading side to another’ when a small group, or single person, on one side of the deal, producing a ‘Supplier’ is the same group, or person, attached with a ‘Principal’ who also secures the ‘End Buyer’.
  21. Matters of final commission ‘pay out’ rate, are discussed with the Primary Intermediary on any given side and the SI attached to such, and agreed upon before any such ‘pay out’ rate advice is delivered to the Principal.
  22. The ‘Principal’ will only allot ‘pay out’ rates as specified by the ‘Primary Intermediary’ on any given side.
  23. The ‘Principal’ is formally obligated to physically pay such rate to each nominated ‘SI’ when commission becomes payable as directed by his ‘PI’ or as offered to each member by the ‘Principal’.
  24. In all cases, in where a Transaction closes, the attached ‘PI’ is paid first, the attached ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’ come second, in order of the ‘string Contract’ application.
  25. The ‘Principal’ at pay out time shall advise a ‘Pro Forma Invoice’ to each named person, and pass such to the ‘PI’, who shall distribute such individually to each person being assured commission by e-mail.
  26. The entity receiving the ‘Pro Forma Invoice’, shall sign such as accepted and return a copy to the ‘PI’, who shall pass such to the ‘Principal’ as received.
  27. No payment will be made once due, unless the ‘Pro Forma Invoice is signed and declared carrying proper information of the entity accepting payment.
  28. All payments are made directly by ‘SWIFT’, only to the named bank account appearing on the ‘Pro Forma Invoice’, as a matter of formal record.
  29. A ‘Pro Forma Invoice’ once issued, not bearing the same information as secured at the start of he Transaction shall not be paid. No changes on a ‘Pro Forma Invoice’ will be entertained.
  30. Those who are assisting a ‘PI’ may accept the ‘commission minimum rate’ or may ‘reject’ the ‘minimum rate’ offered. A ‘rejection’ of a rate may produce a ‘counter rate’ or may cancel the whole Transaction, in where the decision of the ‘Principal’ once made, is firm and final.

URPIB Article 15, 1 - 13 
Commission – E-mail Serviced Irrevocable Payment Guarantee 

  1. ‘eIPG’ Protection mechanisms, means an e-mail applied ‘Irrevocable Payment Guarantee’ application.
  2. All matters of a written ‘IPG’ may still apply, by those wishing to use such, in accordance with the ‘FTN Exporting Trading Doctrine’, in where such is now considered to be a ‘private contracting arrangement’. Relevant matters defined herein pertaining to the use of ‘eIPG’ may also apply to some parts of a formally written ‘IPG’.
  3. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is only obligated to abide by matters of ‘eIPG’, as defined herein, if they chose to instigate a ‘eIPG’ status using only ‘e-mail applications’, when such a ‘Principal’ decides to use the services of temporarily or fully attached ‘Intermediary(ies)’ to assist said ‘Principal’.
  4. This is the current 2012 preferred ‘eIPG’ issuance application. All persons providing information to a ‘URPIB Buyer/ Seller’ in an active ‘string Contract’, leading the closing of a deal, are entitled to ‘commission’ whether a ‘pay order’ is in place or not, once an active deal has closed.
  5. The ‘Principal’ may ask to test the information first, before considering advising an ‘eIPG’, in where ‘disclosure’ of information does not included ‘disclosure’ of any ‘Principal’.
  6. Should a ‘Principal’ advise, by e-mail, that the information advised is accepted, or imply in any positive matter, as to have accepted the information provided, the ‘Principal’ shall estimate a ‘personal commission rate’ inline with the rate applicable to normally attached ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’, as indicated in these ‘Rules’, once all ‘Intermediaries’ in a ‘string Contract’ have been advised.
  7. If ‘Product’ is yet to be assured, in where, price is not ascertained immediately, then the ‘Principal’ shall imply that the ‘minimum commission rate’ application will apply.
  8. If an ‘Agent’ or ‘PI’ is used by the ‘Principal’, then the ‘Principal’ shall only confer with his ‘Agent’ or ‘PI’, in all matters of a potential deal, including matter of ‘commission rates’ and payments, in where, such a ‘PI’ then advises and instructs all those attached to the ‘PI’.
  9. Once an ‘eIPG’ status is apparent, full ‘disclosure’ of the ‘Principal’ must be surrendered within 24 hours of an ‘eIPG’ being in force. The ‘Primary Intermediary’ must collect the relevant personal details of each person seeking ‘commission’ and provide such to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ once such is asked for, but may indicate the number of ‘SI’ involved in the deal when a ‘OTS’ or ‘RFQ’ is advised.
  10. No ‘Post Office Box’ addresses are allowed. Current banking information must be supplied for inclusion on each individual payment that will need to eventuate, once a Transaction successfully closes.
  11. It is contrary to the ‘Rules’ and illegal to claim other forms of ‘commission’ in the same Transaction from any other source.
  12. If any such fraudulent activities are discovered, the ‘Seller’ will advise his bank not to honour the ‘commission pay order’ due to this person.
  13. The ‘Souring Intermediary’ may accept or decline such a ‘commission rate’ offer. The surrendering of valuable information indicates that the ‘rate’ has been accepted, and indicated that the ‘Principal’ is prepared to personally pay ‘commission’ once earned as stated.

URPIB Article 16, 1 - 25 
Acceptable Products and Services – All URPIB Intermediaries

An ‘Intermediary’ shall not trade in, or attempt to trade with, the following ‘Products’ or ‘entities’ who ply such: 

  1. ‘PBG’, otherwise known as financial instruments; ‘Prime Bank Guarantees’. This includes Bank Warrants, Pension Funds, Medium Term Notes (MTN) and the likes.
  2. Any form of Gold Bullion (or other precious metals) held in ‘electronic depository’ form. Physical trading in gold, in any form, is allowed where no ‘Certificate’ is apparent on such gold – this is also defined as ‘deep storage gold’, ‘alluvial gold’ or ‘dust’. ‘DSG’ must be refined at Buyer’s cost to obtain formal ‘Certification’. Only very experienced traders should attempt these trades.
  3. Any form of diamonds or precious stones held in ‘electronic depository’ form is not permitted. Physical trading in any precious stones is allowed, with the exception of ‘conflict diamonds’; diamonds obtained by the exploitation of children or which provide appalling pay and condition for its workers. In general, only very experienced traders should attempt such a trade.
  4. Any weapons or material, whether raw or processed, used to make weapons or devices of mass destruction. Legally acquired military equipment and such associated material are allowed. Only very experienced traders should attempt such a trade.
  5. Any biological material that could be misused to the detriment of humans. (Medical equipment and medicines allowed.)
  6. Any Government, Race or Country that has a definite ‘ill will’ against the United States of America (i.e.: Embargo applied by the USA) or allied Countries, considered to be allies or in amicable association with the USA. ‘Intermediaries’ may trade with Countries which have demonstrated past ‘ill will’ towards the USA, but which now are ‘making efforts’ to unite or reunite diplomatically with the USA.
  7. A felon, or person, who has been tried under Westminster or Democratic type of judicial system, incarcerated in a prison for any reason involving with matters of theft, arson, fraud or deception.
  8. The ‘Intermediary’ should not trade, resell, nor be in possession of any trade secrets, copyright material or matters considered secretive by nature.
  9. ‘Intermediaries’ shall not practice any business that suggests money laundering or any associated criminal activity, such as the trafficking of people or prohibited substances.
  10. Any Transaction in which the parties are not transacting in the same language.
  11. Any ‘primary crude oil Transaction’ (or fuels in general). ‘Secondary crude oil Transactions’ are allowed. A ‘primary Contract’ is defined to be one where a ‘precondition of sale’ requires the ‘disclosure’ of a ‘Refinery Processing Agreement’ or similar.
  12. An ‘undischarged bankrupt entity’ may only trade in the position of a ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ while attached and may not trade in the position of a primary ‘Principal’ defined as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  13. A person of diminished mental capacity or a person who cannot comprehend the language of a deal they are entering into or any person under 18 years of age.
  14. The following ‘commodities’ and ‘quantities’ are best avoided: Non-ferrous scrap metal, Beef Products, Quarantine Products, Fumigated Food Products, Loose clothing. ‘Single’ or ‘Multi’ FCL loads.
  15. Any other ‘commodity traders’ who ask for ‘T/T’, ‘SWIFT’ type of ‘payments’ or ‘PBG payments’ or an ‘active’ or ‘inactive’ ‘SLC’ up front are to be avoided. Likewise trading in such ‘instruments’ are not allowed.
  16. Any ‘Producer’ or ‘Supplier’ entity, in any Country, in where such has been noted for ‘human rights violations’ are to be avoided. Any Country, in where a violent civil dispute has broken out.
  17. An ‘Intermediary’ shall not be involved with any ‘exporter’ or ‘importer’ of live animals, in where ‘cruel’ handling or processing methods are apparent.
  18. An ‘Intermediary’ must, at all times, ensure that the ‘Product’ they are dealing with is indeed merchantable, appropriate and readily sourced from reputable ‘Suppliers’. Furthermore, the ‘Intermediary’ must have made ‘reasonable effort’ to ascertain, by whatever means, that the ‘Product’ they are dealing with is safe, legal and genuine, and is ‘generally acceptable’ as a tradable ‘Product’ world-wide.
  19. An ‘Intermediary’ shall not trade on ‘Offers’ and ‘Contracts’ where ‘UN sanctions’ are in force, unless ‘permission’ is sought of the ‘UN’ in writing.
  20. ‘Dishonourable’ or ‘ill informed’ traders, and ‘Offers’ they ply in contrary to the ‘Doctrine’ and these ‘Rules’, must not be entertained.
  21. All matters of shipping ‘charter party’ ‘Contracts’. ‘Intermediaries’ may only transact on ‘CFR’ or ‘CIF’ Transactions, where ‘matters of shipping’ is tenured by the ‘Supplier’.
  22. All matters of a Transaction where trading terms in part, or fully, are apparent such as ‘LOI, BCL, ICPO, POP, ASWP, T/T, MPA, NCNDA, BG, SLC, MOU, EXW, DDP or DAP’.
  23. ‘URPIB Intermediaries’ may only trade in ‘CIP, FCA, CIF, CFR, FAS, FOB, and CPT’.
  24. A ‘Buyer/ Seller’ may not ‘disclose’ details of a ‘Supplier’ to an ‘End Buyer’, or vice versa, if such are trading ‘on behalf of a disclosed Principal”.
  25. A ‘Principal’ must never trade, when offering goods for sale, without first having ‘secured’ a good valid ‘Offer’ or ‘Quote’ from a genuinely ascertained ‘Supplier’ in ‘possession’ of goods.

URPIB Article 17, 1 - 4 
Honourable Intent

  1. An ‘Intermediary’ shall not ‘transact’ in ‘bad faith’ or in a ‘dishonourable’ manner.
  2. Any ‘Intermediary’ who ‘circumvents’ others, or produces ‘Offers’ without ‘ostensible authority’, shall be deemed to be a ‘dishonourable trader’, and shall not be allowed to trade within a ‘string Contract’. Once the ‘infringing’ party or person has been clearly ‘identified’ as having transacted in a manner that is defined at being in ‘bad faith’, this person shall be ‘blacklisted’ on the ‘URPIB Registry for Life’.
  3. ‘Dishonourable acts’ are defined as, among other things, wilfully deceiving an ‘End Buyer’, ‘Supplier’ or any other ‘Intermediary’ in the course of a Transaction, with the intention of causing or furthering the ‘successful closure’ of such a Transaction. An ‘Intermediary’ who falsely represent that they have a ‘Principal’ in relation to a Transaction is acting ‘dishonourably’.
  4. Any ‘Sourcing Intermediary’ acting in contrary to the ‘directives’ of his ‘Principal’ is acting ‘dishonourably’.

URPIB Article 18, 1 - 3 
Intermediary and Goods

  1. A ‘URPIB’ endorsed ‘Intermediary’, officially trading under the ‘Doctrine’, includes support of the proper application of ‘UCP Banking Rules’, ‘Incoterms Delivery Rules’ and ‘English Common Law of Contract Formation’ or part thereof.
  2. The ‘URPIB Intermediary’ shall, at all times, trade in ‘documents’ and not the ‘physical’ goods pertaining to such ‘documents’.
  3. Only ‘statutory’ or ‘Federal Laws’, in the ‘Exporter’s Country’, are capable of ‘overriding’ these ‘Rules’ and ‘Laws’.

URPIB Article 19, 1 - 7 
Performance Guarantee

  1. Other than that, which has been already advised, regarding the ‘Performance Guarantee’, under no circumstances shall a ‘SLC’ supported ‘Performance Guarantee’ be opened, as ‘active’ or ‘inactive’, in any form whatsoever to favour an ‘End Buyer’ before the ‘financial instrument’ pertaining to the ‘Product’ being purchased has been lodged and accepted into the account of the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ associated and controlling the deal in hand.
  2. ‘Intermediaries’ shall not transact on any deals in which the Transaction calls for the ‘Performance Guarantee’ to be lodged prior to the lodgement of an ‘active financial instrument’.
  3. The term ‘Performance Bond’ is not an ‘appropriate’ term of reference for use by ‘URPIB Intermediaries’. ‘URPIB Intermediaries’ shall use the term 'Performance Guarantee' (PG).
  4. The ‘Intermediary’ shall offer a ‘LDD’ (Late Delivery Discount) on ‘Invoice’, as a ‘deduction’ from their envisaged gain, when no ‘P.G.’ is available as secured from a ‘Supplier’.
  5. Even where a ‘P.G.’ is offered by a ‘Supplier’, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is not ‘obligated’ to provide such for the ‘benefit’ of the End Buyer’ and may still, at their ‘discretion’, offer the ‘LDD’ application.
  6. The value of any ‘LDD’ or ‘P.G.’ shall not exceed 2.5% of any portion of ‘gross gains’ envisaged.
  7. The ‘LDD’ may be described as a ‘percentage rate’, or as a ‘dollar rate’, per Metric ton.

URPIB Article 20, § 1 - 6 
Shipment Date

  1. As far as the ‘Intermediary’ is concerned, no Transaction shall be allowed to proceed where a ‘shipment date’ is more than 20 (Twenty) days after the ‘issue’ of the ‘Bill of Lading’ as per its ‘issuance’ date, of the 21 (Twenty One) days allowed for presenting such, before a ‘BOL’ is said to be ‘stale’.
  2. A ‘Bill of Lading’ for all ‘FOB’ Transactions, shall mean a ‘received’ bill, where the ‘Intermediary’ is asked to ‘assist’ the ‘End Buyer’ in obtaining the ‘Bill of Lading’. ‘Liner Waybills’ are not accepted.
  3. All Transactions involving a ‘CIF’ deal shall require a ‘shipped’ bill. In all such Transactions, the ‘shipment date’ shall mean the date when the ‘Bill of Lading’ is issued.
  4. First ‘delivery date’, of less than 45 (Forty Five) days from the ‘Offer’ issuance, is not accepted unless the ‘Supplier’ has ‘Products’ on ‘Offer’ for immediate shipment and, in where; the Country of the ‘End Buyer’ is able to reach the ‘Supplier’s Port’ within 20 (Twenty) days of ‘chartering’ a ship.
  5. In such a case, if the ‘Supplier’ offers a “1st Delivery Date” under 35 (Thirty Five) days, the ‘Intermediary’ shall apply that 35 (Thirty Five) days is the ‘First Delivery Date’ or more, but not less.
  6. All Transactions are ‘Future Delivery Contracts’. No ocean-going ‘Spot Transactions’ are allowed.

URPIB Article 21, 1 - 15 
Matters of Documentary Credits

Types of ‘allowable’ and ‘acceptable credits’ as used by an ‘Intermediary’:

  1. As far as the ‘Intermediary’ is concerned, a current version of a ‘UCP’ formatted ‘Irrevocable, Transferable, Confirmed Documentary Letter of Credit’, whether ‘pre-advised’ or ‘active’, is the first ‘preferred’ acceptable ‘instrument’ that an ‘Intermediary Buyer/ Seller’ should strive to secure.
  2. The said ‘confirmation’ of credit, is made by the bank of the ‘Buyer/ Seller’, at the issuer’s ‘expense’.
  3. A ‘soft confirmation’ is allowed, as made by the bank of the ‘Buyer/ Seller’, at issuer’s ‘expense’.
  4. An ‘Intermediary’ shall not transact on any deal where ‘SWIFT’ or other methods apply for ‘payment’ of goods.
  5. A ‘Supplier’ purporting to ‘Offer’ goods shall not be considered a genuine ‘Supplier’, if they request ‘payment’ in the form of a ‘Transferable Letter of Credit’.
  6. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall allow the ‘transferable instrument’ to be ‘transferred’ only to a ‘Supplier’s account’, as a ‘non transferable instrument.’
  7. ‘Back to Back’ Letter of Credit Procedures are not allowed to be used by ‘Intermediaries’ under ‘URPIB Rules of Trade’.
  8. A ‘transferable credit’ may only be ‘transferred’ once. It’s ‘issuance’ is ‘transferable’, as held by the ‘Buyer/ Seller’, in where once ‘transferred’, the said ‘credit’ can no longer be ‘transferred’ again.
  9. The ‘End Buyer’ issues the ‘credit’ to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ (which may be ‘transferred’ once) as ‘non transferable’ directly to the ‘Owner’ in ‘possession’ of the goods and not to another ‘Seller’.
  10. In accordance with ‘UCP’, ‘Post Office Box’ addresses can no longer be cited on a ‘credit’. Furthermore, the term ‘transferable’ must now be applied to the credit accordingly, as ‘advised’ from an ‘End Buyer’ or his bank, to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ or his bank.
  11. The ‘credit’ must be ‘issued’ from a ‘Top 100 Ranked World Class Safe Bank’, (otherwise the ‘credit’ must be advised as ‘confirmed’) to the account of the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ as the second preferred application.
  12. A ‘confirmed credit’ allows the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ to ‘localise’ the ‘credit’. This means that the ‘advising bank’ is not dependent on the ‘issuing bank’s’ instructions, and allows ‘collection’ upon examining the ‘documents’ required for ‘delivery presentation’. All ‘expenses’ of adding ‘confirmation’ to the ‘credit’ shall be for the account of the ‘End Buyer’.
  13. ‘In-house credits’, or any other ‘credit’, may not be used until ‘great trading experience over years’ is gained by the ‘URPIB trader’. Only a ‘confirmed credit’ may ‘back’ the issuance of an ‘in-house credit’.
  14. All ‘transferable credit’ 'transfer fees' is paid by, as ‘agreed by’, the ‘End Buyer’, when ‘transfer’ is initiated, as per the ‘request’ of the ‘advising bank’ as made applicable to the ‘DLC’ ‘issuing bank’.
  15. The ‘End Buyer obtains an ‘Offer’. The ‘Offer’ must stipulate to imply, in ‘agreement’, that all ‘transfer fees’ are for the ‘account of the End Buyer’. Failing to ‘mention’ such, applies the full meaning of ‘UCP 600 Rules’, in that, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall be ‘required to pay’ for the ‘transfer fee’ before the bank is ‘obligated’ the ‘transfer’ the ‘buy price’ value of goods to the ‘Supplier’, with the ‘issuance’ of a ‘bank endorsed DLC’ to such.

URPIB Article 22, 1 - 9 
Terms and Trading Conditions

  1. Where a ‘precondition’ to a Transaction is the supply of a ‘Bank Comfort Letter’ (BCL) or similar, whether associated with the issue of an ‘ICPO’ or ‘LOI’ or not, shall not be ‘entertained’ under any circumstances by a ‘URPIB trader’.
  2. The ‘Doctrine’, as owned by FTN Exporting, shall not be used in part with other ‘Procedures’ not supported by the ‘FTN Doctrine’.
  3. Under ‘URPIB’, a ‘Quotation’ and / or ‘Offer’ and ‘Contract’ must prevail to establish grounds under ‘Contract Law’, which defines ‘inter alia, acceptance, legal capacity and consideration’.
  4. ‘English Law’ and ability to ‘govern’ in ‘foreign applications’, is ostensibly the ‘leading jurisdiction’ in international trade. ‘Intermediaries’ using ‘URPIB’ shall apply ‘English Law’ and ‘foreign governance’, of such, to ‘reinforce’ and ‘favour’ their own trading activities.
  5. All ‘International airline pilots’ and ‘ship masters’ are ‘required’ to speak ‘English’’ fluently; accordingly the ‘international Language’ of use by an ‘Intermediary’ applying ‘Contract’ is the ‘English Language’.
  6. ‘Local Laws and Customs’ are for ‘local uses’ and shall not be used in ‘extraterritorial’ dealings.
  7. In settling of ‘disputes’, the universal application of the ‘LCIA’ (London Commission of International Arbitration) process is the ‘preferred’ application. In all cases the ‘Intermediary’, acting as ‘Seller’ to the ‘End Buyer’, may select his Country and methods used to settle ‘disputes’.
  8. The ‘Supplier’ to the ‘Buyer’, come ‘Seller’, may choose a ‘jurisdiction’ and method of ‘arbitration’ to which the ‘Buyer’ must accept.
  9. A ‘dispute’ between an ‘End Buyer’ and ‘Buyer/ Seller’ may not mean to imply that such a ‘dispute’ is with the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ as well as his ‘Supplier’; and vice versa. Accordingly, the entity ‘holding supply’ may ‘dictate’ ‘Contract Terms and Conditions’, as well as method of ‘arbitration’.

URPIB Article 23, § 1 - 23 
Corporate Business Forms and Documents

  1. All ‘forms’, ‘documents’, ‘Contracts’, ‘in house’ applications are ‘copyright’ applications whether such are beta form, examples or when apparent in a live deal, are ‘owned’ by FTN Exporting. Such ‘documents’ are offered for personal use by those who have ‘legally’ purchased the ‘FTNX Doctrine’ from a ‘legitimate’ publisher or as per a copy ‘sanctioned’ by FTN Exporting on their web site.
  2. Any ‘Intermediary’ caught using a ‘pirated’ copy of such ‘documents’ by a ‘Principal’ (or publication), in where a Transaction leads to ‘closure’ of a live deal, ‘commission’ shall not be forthcoming to such an individual if upon, a suspect ‘Intermediary’ is tested, in where such is unable to ‘prove’ they are legitimately using such ‘documents’ (or publication). As it applies to a ‘Intermediary’, it applies much more so to a ‘Principal’ doing the same, once such a suspect ‘Principal’ is professing that they are ‘protecting commission’, which they are not ‘authorised’ to do.
  3. An ‘SI’ unsure of the status of a legitimate ‘URPIB’ or ‘Doctrine’ informed ‘Buyer/ Seller’ may ask the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ from where they have purchased their ‘publication’ from, in where the ‘SI’ may verify such to the claimed ‘Seller’ of such.
  4. A ‘SI’ is hereby warned, that a suspect ‘Buyer/ Seller’ who has ‘illegally’ obtained a copy of the works, is the type of ‘Buyer/ Seller’ that will also have no ‘compunction’ to ‘circumvent’ those attached to such, is the immediate ‘assumption’ made.
  5. ‘Intermediaries’ using ‘URPIB’ shall not accept nor apply ‘Procedures’ and terms in a trading environment, terms such as ‘LOI, BCL, MOU, ASWP, NCNDA, MPA, ICPO, RWA, FFIDLC, PB, Divisible, POP’ and shall not use a ‘SLC’ to ‘pay’ for goods.
  6. The use of these ‘acronyms’ automatically ‘invalidates’ the protection and trading support offered under ‘URPIB’.
  7. The use of any ‘appropriate acronym’ must be ‘fully defined’, at least once, in any ‘document’ produced by the ‘professional trader’.
  8. All ‘documents’ produced by a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall be professionally applied, well written, carrying clarity.
  9. ‘Fragmented’, ‘sanitised’ and ‘outdated documents’ must not be relied upon by the ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  10. Under no circumstances shall ‘URPIB Rules’ be used to apply ‘midway’ in a Transaction after it has ‘commenced’ using other ‘flawed’ applications.
  11. All ‘forms’, ‘documents’ and ‘formal direction/ advice’ offered by a ‘Principal’, in any trading situation, may not be changed or altered once issued, as to cause a ‘rejection’ of such ‘document’, ‘advice’ or ‘directions’.
  12. An ‘Intermediary’ may not use the name of a ‘Principal’ unless they are ‘fully attached’ to such or as directed by such. A ‘SI’ using the name of a ‘Principal’ in one Transaction, may not assume that such may apply for all other subsequent Transactions.
  13. A ‘Principal’ does not need to enact on the virtues of a ‘RFQ’ or ‘OTS’ application. Such ‘in-house’ applications are used when a ‘Principal’ is enacting with ‘Sourcing Intermediaries’.
  14. A ‘SI’ must ‘secure’ an ‘Offer’ from a ‘Supplier’, make all attempts to obtain all other required information missing on the ‘Offer’, in where the ‘SI’ transfers all ‘viable information’ onto their own properly formatted ‘template’ defined as a ‘OTS’ (Offer to Sell) and submit such to their ‘attached Principal’ for further action or consideration. This is the main duty of an attached ‘SI’ on the ‘Supplier’ side.
  15. An attached ‘SI’ may service a ‘Letter of Introduction’ defined as an ‘ITB’ to a ‘Supplier’ any time in ‘general’ form, or specific to ‘Products’ they are seeking to be ‘assured’, in their own name in the first instance any time, or on ‘behalf of a Principal’ in the second instance if ‘permission’ is given to do so, as per the copy used at any given time.
  16. An ‘unattached’, but ‘informed SI’, looking to ‘practice’ on the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ protocol may service a ‘Letter of Introduction’ defined as an ‘ITB’ to a ‘Supplier’ any time in ‘general’ form, or specific to ‘Products’ they are seeking to be ‘assured’, in their own name as ‘Buyer’ in ‘consideration’ of such purchase, so long as they are able to ‘service’ the inquiry further or have, are ‘attached’ to ‘Buyer/ Seller’ who will accept to examine an ‘OTS’ on their behalf for enacting upon further. As it applies to the ‘OTS’ so such may apply when using a ‘RFQ’ when securing an ‘End Buyer’ for a ‘Buyer/ Seller’.
  17. The term ‘consideration’ as specified under these ‘Rules’ means that the ‘SI’ is only asking for an ‘Offer’ from a ‘Supplier’ so such may ‘think’ about buying such goods.
  18. The ‘ITB’ contains bone fides of the ‘SI’, and claims made of abilities and skill it can bring to a Transaction, in ‘assisting’ the ‘Supplier’ to secure added sales. The ‘SI’, when making the letter, may mention only that they ‘adhere’ to FTN Exporting ‘URPIB Rules of Doctrine of Trade’.
  19. A ‘SI’ may service an inquiry from an ‘End Buyer’, make all ‘attempts’ to obtain all other required information missing as the inquiry made, in where the ‘SI’ transfers all ‘viable information’ onto their own properly formatted ‘template’ defined as a ‘RFQ’ (Request for Quote) and submit such to their ‘attached Principal’ for further action or consideration. This is the main duty of an attached ‘SI’ on the ‘End Buyer’s’ side.
  20. A ‘RFQ’ or ‘OTS’ form is not allowed to be given to a ‘Principal’ to ‘fill in and return’ to the ‘Intermediary’, so such can ‘present’ the said form to an ‘attached Principal’.
  21. Under no circumstance shall an ‘Intermediary’ be called to ‘head a deal’ once a deal has ‘commenced’ at ‘Quotation’ or ‘Offer’ issuance stage.
  22. All Transactions ‘commence’ with ‘adherence’ to ‘URPIB Rules’ and end accordingly.
  23. ‘Acceptable variations’ or ‘variables applied’ to the ‘Doctrine’, when used by a ‘URPIB trader’, such must be able to be ‘applied without conflict’ to ‘URPIB Rules’.

URPIB Article 24, 1 - 9 
Contract versus Financial Instrument

  1. No ‘party to a trade’ is permitted to ‘present’ the ‘Contract of Sale’ to a ‘financial institution’ as a ‘precondition’ of doing business, unless the ‘financial institution’ is the ‘End Buyer’ to goods being offered. Banks deal in ‘finance’ and not ‘Contracts’.
  2. Any ‘loan’ needed to open a ‘DLC’ is an ‘obligation’ of the ‘lender’ to the ‘banker’. Once opened, the bank affects its ‘guarantee’ to the ‘Seller’.
  3. Under ‘URPIB’, an ‘Intermediary’ shall treat the ‘financial instrument’, the ‘Sales Contract’, and the ‘insurance Contract’ as all being ‘individual independent documents’.
  4. No ‘bank issued guarantees’ are allowed to be accepted by an ‘Intermediary’. ‘Intermediaries’ shall not transact on the virtues of a ‘Bill of Exchange’.
  5. ‘Cash payment’ may not be asked for or used to buy goods.
  6. ‘Deposits’ may be ‘demanded’ of an ‘End Buyer’, by a standing ‘Buyer/ Seller’, if after 2 (Two) ‘Offers’ have been ‘rejected’ and a third ‘Offer’ is ‘demanded’. This kind of ‘deposit’ shall represent not more then 5 % (Five Percent) of the ‘Contract’ or ‘shipment value’ and is defined as ‘deposit’ and ‘Buyer’s Performance Guarantee’.
  7. Once an ‘Offer’ with ‘added terms’ related to said ‘deposit’ is applied on such and accepted as ‘legally binding’, the actual ‘deposit’ is lodged to the account of ‘Seller’ prior to ‘Contract’ issuance.
  8. In return of the ‘deposit’, ‘PPI Certificate’ is ‘surrendered’ with the issuance of the ‘Contract’.
  9. Should ‘payment’ method, as well as ‘terms and conditions’ on the ‘Offer’, as applied on the ‘Contract’ be ‘challenged’ or not ‘accepted’ by the ‘End Buyer’, is where the actual ‘financial instrument’ for ‘payment’ of goods fail to be ‘lodged’ on time, the ‘Seller’ is allowed to ‘claim’ the ‘deposit’ as an ‘End Buyer’ ‘failure to perform’ penalty and breach of ‘Offer’ and agreement applied on such.

URPIB Article 25, 1 
UCP: Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits

  1. Unless permitted by any ‘URPIB’ updates, an ‘Intermediary’ is not allowed to issue an ‘Offer’ or ‘Contract’ that refers to or relies upon any other ‘provisions’ or ‘protocol’ pertaining to the ‘issuance’ of a ‘financial instrument’ other than those which are ‘endorsed’ under current ‘UCP (Uniform Custom and Practice for Documentary Credits) Rules’. This includes all ‘Financial Instruments’ issued as an “In-house” DLC and ‘endorsed’ as such.

URPIB Article 26, 1 
DLC Transfer Fees/ DLC Confirmation Fees

  1. Article 38 of ‘UCP’, unless changes in the future, applies where both parties have ‘contractually agreed’ upon; that the ‘transfer fee’ is made for the ‘account’ of the ‘End Buyer’ in an ‘unconditional application’ in the first instance, ‘confirmation’ of a ‘credit’ is made by the ‘End Buyer’ to the ‘Seller’s bank’. In the second instance to a ‘free bank’, at it’s counter, in the Country of the ‘Seller’. If a ‘Supplier’ requires a ‘credit’ from the ‘Seller’ to be ‘advised’ as ‘confirmed’, the ‘Supplier’ shall initiate process to ‘confirm’ the ‘credit’ to the ‘Seller’s bank’ at his ‘expense’.

URPIB Article 27, 1 - 7 
Intermediary: Sanctuary

  1. Any ‘Intermediary’ approaching any ‘Buyer/ Seller’ who has ‘declared’ to also be a ‘URPIB trader’, infers explicitly that the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall ‘automatically protect’ the interests of anyone approaching them in any manner, with information, and that should such information prove positive, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ shall ‘collect and protect commission’ for each said ‘protected entity’ unconditionally.
  2. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is not allowed to ‘use’ the information given, in where a deal has ‘collapsed’, in where later should the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ decide to use such ‘vital information’ as provided by the ‘Intermediary’ in the past on another deal yet to apply in the future, such must first ‘notify’ the said ‘Intermediary’ who originally gave such ‘vital information’, before the ‘approach’ is made.
  3. If the ‘Intermediary’ cannot be contacted after ‘various attempts’, the ‘Principal’ may use such information, in where ‘commission portion’ is still ‘secured and held’ on his ‘behalf’ for ‘claiming’ within one year.
  4. The said ‘Intermediary’, once ‘notified’ (whether he or she is involved in the deal or not, being attempted at that time), shall expect ‘unconditionally’ that the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ will apply to include the said ‘Intermediary’ in the ‘commission payment’ structure. ‘Vital information’ specifically defines in where information about a ‘Supplier’ and/ or ‘End Buyer’ are ‘provided’ regardless if a ‘IPG’ is in place or not.
  5. It is a ‘dishonourable act’ to trade as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’ and any ‘URPIB trader’, in where others have ‘trusted’ the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ in providing such with ‘valuable information’ that could be used to ‘close’ upon a Transaction, in where the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ uses such ‘information’ on other future deals without involving the ‘original person’ providing to ‘disclose’ such ‘original information’.
  6. Any ‘Intermediary’ defines to mean anyone trading in commodities whether or not such is ‘informed’ about ‘URPIB’.
  7. “Sanctuary” is an ‘applied mechanism’ that allows one party to ‘disclose’, upfront, ‘vital information’ in a ‘quick manner’ for purpose of ‘evaluation’ without having the deal ‘stall’ due to matters involved in issuing the ‘IPG’ in hardcopy, in where virtues of ‘eIPG’ now may apply.

URPIB Article 28, 1 - 2 
Connecting Commission Payments

  1. In where an ‘Intermediary’ or group being ‘protected’ by the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ has provided ‘information’ to such in the course of a Transaction or otherwise, which leads to the discovery of other ‘Principal(s)’ by ‘default’, then the original ‘Intermediary group’ shall be ‘entitled’ to the ‘payment of commission’ unconditionally, should the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ later contact (or vice versa) such a ‘Principal’, person or party in where a Transaction is ‘closed’.
  2. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ is fully ‘obligated’ to contact all person ‘associated’ in the original party, and ‘pay’ to each individual, a ‘negotiable’ or ‘offered commission payment’ as defined in these ‘Rules’.

URPIB Article 29, 1 - 6 
In-House DLC Use

  1. An ‘in-house DLC’ is a ‘financial instrument’ produced by the ‘Intermediary’ from their ‘own stationary’ and forwarded to the bank of the ‘Supplier’ or exporter for ‘acceptance’, in where ‘authentication’ occurs contrary to ‘normal practices’ as per a ‘reverse protocol’.
  2. The term ‘Bank issued’ financial instrument must not be ‘apparent’ on the ‘Offer’ or ‘Contract’ made by a ‘Supplier’ which ‘allows’ the use of the ‘in-house DLC’ issuance, in where such carries on its form that the ‘in-house DLC’ abides by ‘UCP 600 issuance Rules’.
  3. Only very experienced ‘Intermediaries’ may use the virtues if an ‘in-house DLC’, as the use of such is a ‘new development’ in banking practices from 2007, which still widely ‘unknown’ and not a ‘familiar application’ to many bankers around the world for years to come.
  4. To use an ‘in-house Letter of Credit’, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ must have in ‘their account’, a ‘confirmed accepted credit’ as ‘confirmed’ by ‘their bank’.
  5. ‘Failure to accept’ a ‘correctly formatted’ ‘in-house DLC’, is a ‘breach of Contract’ as applicable from the perspective of the ‘Supplier’, if ‘Offer’ and ‘Contract’ made no asking for a ‘bank issued financial instrument’. ‘Silence’ of this matter, ‘favour’ the ‘DLC issuance’ of the ‘Buyer’.
  6. ‘Intermediaries’ must ask for a ‘bank issued financial instrument’ when dealing with ‘End Buyers’.

URPIB Article 30, 1-7
Non Transparent Acts.

  1. A principal no matter the position held, especially those pertaining to holding an influential position or status in a deal, such as held by a Government Minister or Governmental based agencies , who instigate or enact upon a non transparent improper set of procedures, on purpose, to cover up , hide or evade proper business practices to favour improper practices so as to personally secure improper gains is said to be acting illegally and or unlawfully.
  2. The URPIB trader, once such intent becomes clear and apparent, shall refrain for doing business with such an entity.
  3. Any intermediary enacting on a transaction where a non transparent illegal bribe often defined as a “kick back” is being addressed as an apparent attribute of the transaction, shall immediately refrain from doing business being applied, once such intent become clear and apparent.
  4. A transparent cash rebate is not a ‘kick back’ and shall not be implied to be such in any form, accordingly when a verifiable transparent rebate is offered by a seller to an end buyer or by a buyer to the supplier such shall be implied as being a rebate , given for specific added services rendered by another.
  5. A rebate once specified shall at all times be made transparent from the perspective of the ‘Buyer/seller.’
  6. It is the duty of the person accepting a transparent cash rebate to ensure that his or her own matter of transparency are made accountable in his or her own country in his or her own name.
  7. A ‘Buyer/seller’ acting with good intent and in a transparent manner , shall not be held responsible nor accountable for the improper actions of another principal .
*Copyright : ©URPIB/URITI: 2001 FTN Exporting 2012
*©UCP and Incoterms are a Trade mark of the ICC Paris France.

In Summary: URPIB 2013
URPIB 2013 Summary, I - XIX
Date 1st August  2012

  1. LME, LIFFE, RSA or even where games of football, as apparent world-wide, all have their own ‘Rules of Association’. ‘Rules’ are not ‘Laws’. The ‘nature of business’ is ‘dictated by Laws’, the ‘nature of association’ is ‘dictated by Rules’. When a ‘Rule’ becomes ‘superior’, it to can become ‘Law' or be ‘supported’ by the ‘Law’ as in ‘By-Laws’. ‘Rules and Laws’ may in fact describe ‘unlawful acts and intent’. ‘Laws’, on the other hand, address issues pertaining to ‘illegal and wilful acts’. All ‘Laws’ are ‘Rules’ but not all ‘Rules’ are ‘Laws’. Legally empowered entities can issue ‘fines’ as supported under the ‘Law’. Breaking of ‘Rules’, on the other hand, often imposes a ‘penalty’ or ‘consequence’. It is an ‘unlawful act’ to issues ‘fines’ by an entity not ‘empowered’ under the ‘Law’ to do so. etc…
  2. This is not a ‘commission business’, as defined under ‘local solicitation Laws’ applied in many Countries around the world, to stop ‘door knockers’ trying to ‘induce sales’ at the home of people, in where very ‘hard sell’ efforts are applied which produces a ‘deal’, in turn which earns the ‘door knocker’ or call centre, a ‘commission’. In fact, the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ earns a ‘gain’ or ‘gross profit’ not a ‘commission’. The ‘Buyer/ Seller’ from this ‘gross profits’, pays out a ‘commission’ as ‘net’ to those who ‘assisted’ the ‘Principal’ in ‘securing’ a deal only, once such a deal is ‘closed’. Such a deal often taking many months of negotiation to conclude.
  3. In any ‘business application’ where ‘commission’ is the form of ‘remuneration’, much more so in international trade than any other activity, a ‘Principal must pay commission’ once ‘earned’. The term ‘must pay’ or ‘shall pay’ is not the same as ‘will pay’. There is no ‘Paymaster application’ nor ‘Company Trust Fund’ or ‘Escrow Account application’ in play when ‘payment’ of ‘commission’ is due, as such applications are applied for money ‘ascertained’, in where ‘commission’ is a promise to pay money to individuals once such money is ‘earned’. All ‘Intermediaries’ assisting a ‘Principal’ in bringing a deal to ‘close’ is entitled to a ‘payment of commission’.
  4. The ‘argument’ that the last person in a ‘string Contract’ deserves ‘more’ that those before, is not a ‘valid argument’ unless such has ‘contributed more’ to the whole affair as a ‘PI’; in that , all members of a particular ‘string Contact’ are equally just as important as the whole ‘string’ connection was needed to ensure the information submitted is used by a ‘Principal’, because as stated, without the ‘string Contract’ being ‘attached’ to a ‘Principal’, there is no possibility of any deal, let alone ‘payment of commission’ if no informed ‘Principal’ involved. A ‘PI’ next to the ‘Principal’ enacting with a ‘PI’ next to a ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ does so on the ideal that the ‘PI’ next to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ is very ‘well informed’, otherwise the ‘PI’ next to the ‘Buyer/ Seller’ stands supreme and treats the ‘PI’ next to the ‘End Buyer’ or ‘Supplier’ as another ‘sourcing entity’.
  5. In fact, there could be 4 (Four) ‘PI‘s’ in a ‘string Contract’, but in fact only a maximum of 2 (Two) can enact upon the ‘direct authority’ of the ‘Principal’ who are the only ‘recognised entities’ carrying ‘power’ below the ‘Principal’ if such are ‘apparent’. A ‘PI’ working with a ‘Principal’ on one ‘side of the fence’ may also often ‘appear’ on the ‘other side of the fence’ and as such is ‘entitled’ to that ‘sides’ earned ‘commission payment’ as well, because even though the ‘PI’ is simply another ‘Intermediary’ amongst others, the ‘PI’ also holds ‘power’ of the ‘Principal’, and hence is aligned to the ‘Principal’, in matters of deal closing, but is only aligned to the ‘string Contract’, while an deal is being formed.
  6. It’s the whole ‘string Contract’ which is unique, not each ‘individual’ making up such. Therefore the ‘Principal’ has the right to decline to examine an ‘Offer’ or ‘Inquiry’, or they may examine any such ‘Offer’, and hence ‘automatically’ infer that the ‘interests’ of the ‘Intermediaries’ in a ‘string Contract’ are protected.
  7. Some of ‘URPIB Rules’ are ‘in-house Rules’, others part of ‘URPIB’ are actually tied to ‘Laws of International Trade’, hence unlike some ‘Intermediaries’ have suggested in the past, breaking ‘URPIB Rules’ could mean, in some instances, that you are breaking ‘International Laws’.
  8. The amount ‘earned’ by the ‘Principal’ is no business of the ‘Intermediary’. What is the business of the ‘Intermediary’ is to know the ‘minimum amount’ that ‘Principal’ will ‘protect and pay out’ and nothing more. Once this ‘minimum amount’ is ‘declared’, this is the ‘amount’ that will be ‘paid out’ as the only ‘assurance’ given upon each successful ‘delivery’, hence here is where the ‘promise made’ finds its ‘binding’. The ‘minimum amount’ defined as ‘consideration’, as there is no ‘commission payment’ due if a ‘sum’ has not been first made ‘apparent’.
  9. “AGI” (Academy of Global Intermediaries) will be the ‘controlling body’ administering ‘FTN Exporting URPIB Rules’. Current as of December 2010 Updated and fully revised June 2012.
  10. ‘ICC UCP 600 Article 38’ relates to the ‘issue’ of a ‘financial instrument’ for ‘payment’ of goods by a ‘UCP applicable DLC’. The ‘transfer fee’ relating to the ‘issue’ of this ‘DLC’ is for the ‘expense’ of the ‘End Buyer’. ‘Intermediaries’ must ensure that the ‘Offer’ and ‘Contract’ provides that these fees are for the account of the ‘End Buyer’. ‘Article 38 Paragraph (C)’ implies that “Unless otherwise agreed” at the time of ‘transfer’, the said ‘transfer fee’ must be ‘paid by the Beneficiary’. The ‘End Buyer’ agrees with the ‘Intermediary’ on the ‘Offer’ and ‘Contract’ to ‘pay’ such a ‘transfer fee’, “On behalf of the Beneficiary”.
  11. It’s ‘irrelevant’ how such ‘charges/ fee’s are paid’, so long as 'it’s paid by or on behalf‘ of the ‘Beneficiary’ as ‘defined’, is ‘sufficient’ to satisfy ‘UCP requirements’.
  12. ‘UCP’: As of July 1st 2007, ‘UCP 600’ superseded ‘UCP500’. The ‘Intermediary’ shall now only use ‘UCP’, current ‘Incoterms’ and ‘URPIB’ as a ‘guiding set of Rules until ‘advised further. All ‘Intermediaries’ should consider using ‘URPIB Rules’ while conducting their business as ‘international trade Intermediaries’. They have been ‘compiled’ based on the ‘extensive’ experience and knowledge of the ‘author’ of these ‘works’. Attempting to trade using anything less ‘concise and strict’ than the ‘Doctrine’ provided in supported of these ‘Rules’, is both unacceptable and futile.
  13. FTN Exporting ‘deductions’ made on a ‘successful Transaction’ shall ‘ensure payment’ is made to a ‘recognised charity’ under its long standing ‘©Humano edict’. Such ‘deductions’ are ‘drawn’ from FTN Exporting ‘own gains’. Such ‘payments’ are made to included the names all those who have ‘assisted’ in the ‘closing of a successful transaction’. 3.0% (Three Percent) of ‘personal gains’ made by the ‘Principal’, once ‘secured’, is considered a ‘fair amount’ to be contributed. The ‘charity’ in question will be a ‘globally recognised charity’, which is supported by a ‘well-informed’ Internet site carrying contact information. Any ‘Principal of Agency’ who has been ‘personally supported’ by FTN Exporting or who have used, studied and relied upon ‘trading information’ and ‘Doctrine’ provided by FTN Exporting, shall also ‘contribute’ to a ‘recognised charity’ on any ‘successful Transaction’ closed, including anyone using these ‘Rules’ of ‘support and guidance’. Agreeing to such an ‘edict’ allows the ‘entity’ the right to use these ‘Rules’ no matter the ‘nature of agency’ business being applied.
  14. The ‘©Humano Edict’ is a FTN Exporting ‘initiative’, in which ‘Intermediaries’ make a ‘contribution’ for the purpose of ‘helping’ those ‘less fortunate’ than themselves. This is especially the case in Countries from which ‘high value goods’ are exported, but where workers do not enjoy ‘basic human rights’ and are very ‘poorly’ paid. For example, in the Dominican Republic, ‘sugar cane farm workers’ are paid less than a dollar a day, while the goods they ‘harvest’ are sold globally at ‘world benchmark prices’. FTN Exporting hopes that one day ‘U.N. edicts’ encourage banks globally to ‘follow suit’, in allowing such to ‘collect’ a small ‘charitable fee’ on each ‘DLC issued’ to buy goods, of which is ‘collected’ to ‘favour’ economically depressed third world Countries. These ‘funds’ would be used to provide ‘basic needs’ to people living in a state of ‘abject poverty’. Even at 10 (Ten) cents per Tonne, applied on such goods as a ‘Humano Tax’, ‘collected’ via banks world-wide, would generate many millions of dollars annually to help those in need, without ‘End Buyers’ even noticing such ‘deductions’. California USA, pre 2010, alone generated more 1 (One) Trillion dollars in ‘financial Transactions’ now giver ‘perspective’ to the ‘©Humano edict’. ‘Humano’: ‘Human’ and 'Mano' derived from the Italian/ Latin term for ‘Hand’. (Hence- Helping Hand)
  15. Special Note: ‘WTMW, FYBR and ITSI Doctrine’ is written in a manner to ‘convey’ how a ‘Intermediary’ must trade independently as a ‘Buyer/ Seller’. Such a ‘Doctrine’ is not designed for ‘interaction’ with the ‘Author’ or FTN Exporting; only because of the ‘unique position’ it holds as a ‘leading teacher’ for so many others. ‘Invited, supported and mentored traders’ and or ‘FTNX Agents’ working with FTN Exporting often ‘bypass’ the previous said ‘IPG’ application to save time as such, ‘associated traders’ after the first few times become ‘wary’ on how hard it is to ‘close a deal’ and often simply wait for the deal to go past ‘Offer’ stage, in where, as per such understanding, FTN no longer ‘issues pay orders’ to anyone.
  16. ‘Incoterms 2010’ due 1st of Jan 2011. FTN release the ‘ITSI publication’ pre-Incoterms released. The ‘rumour’ was that such ‘delivery rules’ were going to be released as 'Incoterms 3000'. The correct term is ‘Incoterms 2010’.
  17. It is the ‘informed personal opinion and conviction’, of FTN Exporting, that ‘Incoterms 2010’ has been found to be mephitic, ambiguous, contradictory and antonymous as it relates to the ‘Intermediary’ business. FTN Exporting was not ‘consulted’ on matters of ‘Incoterms 2010’, yet strangely enough, changes made are already ‘incorporated’ years ago in the ‘FTN Doctrine’, reflecting again the ‘superior nature’ of the ‘Doctrine’ thanks to the ‘brilliant mind’ of ‘International Trade Expert and U.K Barrister, Professor Clive M. Schmitthoff ‘ (1992), in where FTN Exporting has ‘studied’ the ‘works’ of such intently , and in where the ‘required mindset’ to be able to ‘produce’ the said ‘Doctrine’ first ‘eventuated’ from after changes were adopted, tested and applied. Selected parts of the ‘ICC Chamber of Commerce Rules of Banking and Delivery’ (©ICC Paris France ) also play an ‘important role’ in defining the ‘Doctrine’. The emulations of ‘English Laws and Rules of International Trade’ (and indeed in matters of ‘world class’ Sport events and ‘Rules’ to such I.e.: Olympics) are ‘copied’ world-wide in part or fully, hence the ‘Doctrine’ is underpinned by ‘English Law and Foreign Governance’ of such as well as ‘Contract Formation Rules’, in where the whole ‘Doctrine’ is made up of many ‘formidable Laws and Rules of Agency and Trade’.
  18. The ‘Doctrine’ is the ‘structure and platform of trade’ made for ‘Intermediary’ use. In where ‘continental Europe internal cross border trade deals’ apply, ‘European Laws’ override small parts of the ‘Doctrine’, but in where the use of ‘EXW, DAP and DDP delivery modes’ are not ‘offered’ as a part of the ‘Doctrine’ and as such ‘European Laws’ has no relevance, to which ‘Maritime applications’ of the ‘Doctrine’ is the ‘prevailing application’. ‘Internal Russian Laws’ apply to matter of goods being exported, but such does not ‘override’ matters of ‘UCP’ use nor matters of ‘delivery rules’, accordingly ‘Russian Law’ may not be ‘imposed’ as being a ‘ruling legal application’ for use in the ‘export of International type of goods’. India, USA, England, and China and Past Colonies of England, ‘apply’ matters of the ‘Doctrine’ in the first instance, hence applying that the ‘majority’ of Countries world-wide are able to ‘conduct business’ as per the ‘Doctrine’, in where the ‘minority’ may ‘entertain’ the part use of the ‘Doctrine’ is best ‘assumed’. No matter the Country or ‘Laws’ used, no person of ‘sound mind’ may ‘consider’ to ‘buy’ anything without first knowing ‘what is being offered’ is a ‘common-sense’ and ‘logical approach’ of any ‘business application’, as such, no matter the ‘excuses’ given, ‘common-sense’ applies as ‘starting edict’ of the ‘Doctrine’ as well.
  19. FTN Exporting own © ‘Ultra terms 2012’, shall ‘replace’ the use in part ‘Incoterms’ in late 2013.

End URPIB 2013