FEED MERCHANTS WITH “NEW CLAUSE” BY TAKING TRADE TO THE NEXT PHASE AND WEIGH THE OUTCOME
Taking a bold step from a traditional approach by firms often comes with challenges and a similar case with trade-related firms due to legal implications. However, looking at the subject phrase – ‘new clause’ which meant sets of legal conditions that are laid out by freight firms, if modified in order to achieve the desired result, it will be required of these firms to feed merchants with the modified version, and, in turn, weigh the outcome.
Modification of the subject is often carried out by companies as an attempt to restructure their offers, precisely to compete favorably. This is because firms have set-out targets, while in this space, market dominance remains a huge concern notably for emerging trade firms, on the other hand, companies that have supposedly laid their footprint are often required to modify their sets of trade terms and conditions, thus, clause that ensures their dominance.
As firms seek to achieve their monthly and quarterly trade targets, the need to strengthen their legal framework aimed at business stability should be viewed paramount. Trade clause, which meant a healthy tool precisely when properly structured ensures merchants comply with the firm’s sets of trade delivery conditions. Yet, these are not meant to trap these merchants but to assure them of transparency.
Although, the primary aim of this submission is to offer a quick check on how your newly modified clause is shaping the firm’s goal. This can only be verified by firms via merchants’ response, such that, the current volume of trade is compared with the previous given favorable conditions that could’ve emerged as a sign of the firm’s updated clause.
Aside from trade volume which we’ll talk about in a minute, it’s also fair to note that there are equally other areas that could offer some level of update over modification of clause if such attempt actually added value or impacted on the firm’s growth and financial goal. For example, the number of penalties and legal claims that are filed against such a firm due to misdeclaration, damage, or loss. Noting that delays in the return of shipment equipment like containers as we know often incur penalty fees due to clause curbed out to guide against container damages, loss, and delay in the return of empty per trade.
Looking at penalty fees as one of the factors that could shape a firm’s target, can only be except when it’s properly shaped in fairness. But the question here is – how do merchants view this specific fee, does it seems to them a heavy burden or perceived from a standard approach! Equally, since clause practically guide against unnecessary filing by merchants, a properly shaped clause should not only safeguard the firm’s interest but also the merchant’s. This is helpful in the event of third-party engagement (contracted on the basis of a contract of carriage).
In fact, trade volume is significant and should be viewed core, more significantly in this context, which is consequently the reason why your firm opted for clause review. This is because the volume of trade is something that should determine the outcome of any modification, noting that this is also a determination of its goal and reach in the global market.
Lastly, as you double down on this path geared towards your firm’s target, it will also be fair to takeout time to do the needful and let us know about your firm’s progress.
- What have you observed so far?
Be the first to comment