A abettor f.o.b. performs his obligation by putting the appurtenances which accommodate to the adjustment onboard the address at his expense. The accustomed aphorism in f.o.b. affairs is that accident passes on addition and according to the acceptable view, this is fabricated aback the appurtenances cantankerous the ship’s rail. Moreover, there are assorted types of f.o.b. contract, and for the annual convenience, they accept been aggregate beneath three aloft headings which depend on the ambition of parties as absitively by the agreement of adjustment and the surrounding circumstances. It is in the aboriginal abode directed alone to the addition of the aboriginal of the two basal appearance of the f.o.b. adjustment mentioned earlier, namely, to the assay of costs and responsibilities which putting appurtenances chargeless on lath may absolutely entail in assorted instances. For this acumen they accept been termed appropriately the austere or archetypal f.o.b. contract, the f.o.b. adjustment with added casework and the f.o.b. adjustment (buyer application with carrier).
It is difficult to ascertain a FOB adjustment because there are abounding altered variants: Devlin J.  explains the FOB adjustment as “a adjustable instrument”. The capital obligations of the parties to an FOB adjustment were declared judicially in Wimble, Sons and Co v Rosenberg.  The abettor charge put on lath address appurtenances which accommodate to the adjustment a charge pay all accuse in affiliation with loading. The abettor is not answerable to book aircraft amplitude in advance; the client charge appoint the address to backpack the appurtenances and acquaint the abettor of the best in time to acquiesce the abettor to buck the appurtenances on board. The costs of carrying are for the buyer’s account.
It is not accessible to accompaniment in accustomed agreement the duties of an f.o.b. seller, for the accessible acumen that they alter according to the blazon of f.o.b. adjustment in question. A added adversity in discussing the duties of the abettor after-effects from the actuality that addition beneath an f.o.b. adjustment is in abounding respects a collaborative enterprise, involving co-operation amid client and seller. It can, however, be said that the arch duties commonly undertaken by an f.o.b. abettor are to put appurtenances which accommodate with the adjustment on lath the address in accordance with the aircraft instructions (if any) accustomed from the buyer, and the client are to buck the amount of accomplishing so. Added duties may, of course, be undertaken in the contract. 
When attractive at the assorted administrative pronouncements that accept attempted to ascertain the f.o.b. term, one annual may be addled by the accustomed appellation in which they are implicit. One of the ancient is apparently Stock v Inglis  a case dealt with specific goods, area it was stated:
If the appurtenances dealt with by the adjustment were specific goods, it is not denied but that the words free
on board, according to the accustomed compassionate of merchants, would beggarly added than alone that
the abettor was to put them on lath at his expense; they would beggarly that he was to put them on
board at his amount on annual of the actuality for whom they were shipped; and in that case the
goods so put on lath beneath a adjustment would be at the accident of the client whether they were absent or
not on the voyage.
Now that is the acceptation of those words chargeless on lath in a adjustment with attention to specific goods, and in that case the appurtenances are that the purchaser’s risk, alike admitting the acquittal is not to be fabricated on the commitment of the appurtenances on board, but at some alternative time, and although the bill of burden is beatific advanced by the abettor with abstracts attached, in adjustment that the appurtenances shall not be assuredly delivered to the client until he has accustomed the bills or paid cash. 
Almost a aeon afterwards Lord C.J. analogously declared in J. Raymond Wilson & Co. Ltd. v. N. Scratchard Ltd.  that the f.o.b. appellation has:
For a continued time, absolutely added than one hundred years, had a acclaimed meaning, and if a affair sells appurtenances chargeless on board, the acceptation is that he has to put the appurtenances on lath and to pay the amount of accomplishing so, and commitment is fabricated and the appurtenances are at the accident of the client aback they are on board, the amount accepting been paid by the seller. 
Looking in both these judgments, there are two characteristics of the f.o.b. terms, which can be abbreviated as follows:
€ the abettor charge pay the amount and buck the albatross of putting appurtenances “free on board” , in alternative words, buck the abounding accountability for the amount and assurance of the appurtenances until the point of their casual the ship’s rail, and
that aloft this actuality able commitment is complete and the accident of accident in the appurtenances is there and again transferred to the buyer. 
However, the aloft cited definitions are alone directed to the capital appearance of the f.o.b. term. They do not accommodate an all-encompassing or abundant assay of a array of bordering responsibilities of which abounding accept been the accountable of altercation and alike action amid parties to f.o.b. sales. For example, they do not announce whether an obligation, budgetary or other, which relates to the addition of the goods, that charge be complied with afore the appurtenances can in actuality be loaded, is for the buyer’s or for the sellers account.  In the absence of accurate acknowledged stipulations, administrative interpretations accept had to await on acceptance or custom and by association attack to ascertain what the ambition of the parties with annual to achievement charge accept been.
Furthermore, there are assorted types of f.o.b. contracts, and for the annual of convenience, they accept been disconnected into three groups. The variations appear in the alternative incidents of the accord amid the parties depend aloft the agreement of the adjustment and the surrounding circumstances.  The aboriginal blazon is the austere or archetypal f.o.b. contract. The added is the f.o.b. adjustment with added services. The aftermost blazon may be declared as the f.o.b. adjustment (buyer application with carrier). 
Schmitthoff states that the appellation f.o.b. is acclimated in affairs of altered appearance and the responsibilities which appear beneath the article alter according to the attributes of the affairs in which the appellation occurs. The accidental obligations which the appellation f.o.b. implies accept to be absolute by an assay of the accurate or adumbrated ambition of the parties. A acumen of ample activated accent is that amid three types of f.o.b. contracts, and, it depends on the parties which of these types are used. 
The aboriginal blazon is the austere or archetypal f.o.b. contract. Schmitthoff explains this blazon of f.o.b. in the afterward term. He said:
Under this adjustment the client has to appoint a acceptable ship. Aback it arrives in the anchorage of shipment, the abettor places the appurtenances on lath beneath a adjustment of carrying by sea which he has fabricated with the carrier, but this adjustment is fabricated for the annual of the buyer. The abettor receives the bill of burden which commonly shows him as consignor and is to his order, and he transfers it to the buyer. Abyssal allowance is commonly abiding by the client directly, if he wishes to insure, but he may additionally ask the abettor to align abyssal allowance for the buyer’s account. 
The added blazon is the f.o.b. adjustment with added services. Schmitthoff addendum that:
Under this adjustment the aircraft and allowance arrange are fabricated by the seller, but this is done for the annual of the buyer. In this blazon of f.o.b. adjustment the client is not beneath an obligation to appoint a acceptable address but the best is done by the seller. Again, as in affairs of the aboriginal type, the abettor enters into a adjustment with the carrier by sea, places the appurtenances on lath address and transfers the bill of burden to the buyer. 
The third blazon may be declared as the f.o.b. adjustment (buyer application with carrier). Schmitthoff states that:
Here the client himself enters into a adjustment of carrying by sea anon or through an agent, e.g. a forwarder. Naturally the client has nominated the ship, and aback it calls on the anchorage of shipment, the abettor puts the appurtenances on board. The bill of burden goes anon to the client and does not canyon through the seller’s hands. 
Consequently, in f.o.b. adjustment of the aboriginal and third blazon the client has the assignment to appoint the ship, but in the added blazon this assignment rests with the seller.  Furthermore, in affairs of the aboriginal and added blazon ‘the abettor is in acknowledged accord with the sea carrier, and for this acumen the added blazon has been declared as a alternative of the aboriginal type.’  However, for the third blazon it is the assignment of the client who may accomplish the adjustment of carrying by sea with the carrier and the abettor is not a affair in this contract. 
The f.o.b. appellation is actual flexible. Therefore, the duties of the parties amid three types of f.o.b. adjustment capacity to the ambition of the parties and the surrounding affairs which of these types is used. 
1) Best of Vessel
The obligation to appoint the barge can be placed on the abettor or the buyer. However, unless agreed otherwise, this assignment in f.o.b. adjustment is on the buyer.  Hence, in this case the client has to appoint an able barge in which he has appointed addition space. The client additionally has the assignment to acquaint the abettor of the name of the address and the date aback the barge will be accessible for loading.  The best charge be notified to the abettor to accord the abettor acceptable time to put the appurtenances on lath a address nominated by the buyer.
If the client fails to appoint an able barge is a aperture of contract, the abettor is advantaged to affirmation amercement for breaching of the contract. Nevertheless, the abettor will not be able to affirmation the acquirement amount if the client has not nominated an able address because the buying in the appurtenances will abide with the seller. In Colley & Overseas Exporters  the abettor was alone advantaged to damages, and not to the acquirement amount aback the client bootless to name a address so acreage in the appurtenances still abide with the abettor and never anesthetized to the buyer.  As a aftereffect of this uncertainty, the abettor is brash to assert aloft a adjustment article acute the acquirement amount to become due on a anchored date, whether a acceptable barge has been called or not. 
Some f.o.b. affairs charge the purchaser’s notification of the vessel’s best and address to accept commitment of the appurtenances is accustomed to the abettor in beforehand of delivery. Then, if the client fails appoint a barge on time agency he is in aperture of the contract, and the abettor may debris to buck the appurtenances on board, in Bunge Corp. v Tradax Consign S.A.  was captivated that:
The cloister will crave absolute acquiescence with agreement as to time, wherever the affairs of the case announce that this would fulfil the ambition of the partiesâ€¦
It is acutely capital that both client and sellerâ€¦ should apperceive absolutely what their obligations are, best abnormally because the adeptness of the abettor to fulfil his obligation may able-bodied be absolutely abased on accurate achievement by the buyer.
Schmitthoff states that the client has the assignment to appoint a barge in a austere f.o.b. adjustment and an f.o.b. (buyer application with carrier) contract. However, this assignment is not necessarily for him in f.o.b. affairs with added casework aback ‘in this blazon of adjustment he may leave the best of the address to the seller.’ 
2) Acting Vessel
Time of best is usually of the aspect of the f.o.b.contract. Therefore, if the nominated address is aloof or the best fails for some alternative reason, the client is answerable to name a acting vessel, on action that loading can be able aural the adjustment period.  This was so captivated in Agricultores Federados Argentinos v. Ampro S.A.  .Consequently, it agency that if the buyer’s aboriginal best fails and the aboriginal barge becomes bare for any reason, a acting barge may still be nominated by the buyer, provided loading can be completed aural the adjustment period.  Moreover, the client charge acknowledge any added amount acquired by the substitution.
3) The Assignment to Access an Consign License
Normally the assignment to access an consign authorization is on the abettor aback he is in the bigger position to do so and the accent of the adjustment or the surrounding affairs may announce that the abettor was advised to accept this duty.  On the alternative hand, if he does not, there is no aphorism about who should accept the assignment to annex an consign authorization beneath an f.o.b. contract. Anniversary case charge be bent on its own actuality and situation. In H.O. Brandt & Co Ltd. v H.N. Morris Ltd  the Cloister of Appeal captivated that ‘the obligation of applying for and accepting an consign authorization lay with the buyers rather than the sellers’ and
Scrutton L.J. empiric that:
…the buyers were beneath a assignment to accommodate an able barge that is to say a vessel, which can accurately backpack the goods. If this is so the accepting of a authorization is the buyer’s concern. It is their affair to accept the barge beatific out of the country afterwards the appurtenances accept been put on lath and the actuality that a prohibition adjoin consign includes a prohibition adjoin bringing the appurtenances to the anchorage or alternative abode for exportation does not casting a assignment of accepting a authorization on the sellers. Bringing the appurtenances on to the anchorage is alone accessory to the export, which is the basis of the license.
On the alternative hand, in A.V. Pound & Co Ltd. v M. W. Hardy & Co. Inc.  , by the House of Lords was captivated that ‘in the affairs of the case the assignment to defended the consign authorization was casting on the sellers and not on the buyers.’
Accordingly, it is accessible that assignment to defended an consign authorization will depend aloft the affairs of anniversary case that it shall be acquired by the abettor or the buyer.
4) Transfer of Property
Under the ship’s abuse aphorism is explained that for the f.o.b. adjustment there is a anticipation that the casual of acreage to the client occurs aback the appurtenances canyon the ships rail, but this charcoal accountable to any accurate adumbration by the parties that they intend the casual of the acreage can action at a altered time beneath the Sale of Appurtenances Act 1979, s.17.
According to the aloft rule, there is the acknowledged angle is activated admitting the actuality that some aeon afore casual the ship’s abuse it will accept become abstract for the abettor to anamnesis and acting the goods.
In Pyrene v Scindia Navigation Co. Ltd.   , said:
â€¦a blaze breakable was damaged during the loading action anon afore it had beyond the ship’s rail. The acreage in the soods remained with the abettor at the time they were damaged alike though, in reality, the abettor could not by again accept apoplectic the loading to alarm the blaze breakable aback to bank to acting it with another.
5) Transfer of Risk
In f.o.b. adjustment Goode addendum to the casual of accident of the appurtenances that ‘the accident passes to the client on addition alike admitting the abettor has retained the bill of lading, or has had it fabricated out to his own adjustment to defended the price, and alike if he advised to assets a appropriate of disposal’.