GAFTA has published revised editions of its standard-form rice contracts, Contract No. 122 (CIF/CIFFO/C&F/C&FFO terms) and Contract No. 120 (FOB terms), effective 1 July 2026, replacing the October 2025 editions. The core contractual architecture of both forms (English governing law, Gafta Arbitration Rules No. 125, force majeure, circle clause, insolvency and international convention exclusions) remains unchanged. What follows is a summary of the substantive changes and a practical legal view on what they mean for the trade.
What’s New in Contract No. 122
Perhaps the most immediately visible change is that Contract No. 122 now covers rice shipped in bulk as well as in bags. The previous edition was drafted exclusively around bagged rice, which had become increasingly out of step with market reality: a significant and growing proportion of internationally traded rice moves in bulk carriers rather than in sacks. The revised form accommodates both modes of carriage within a single contract, requiring only that where bags are used they be uniform and suitable for export. In practice, this means that parties trading bulk rice on CIF or C&F terms no longer need to adapt a bags-only form or resort to non-standard wording.
A second important development concerns the point at which quality and weight are finally determined. Under the 2025 edition, determination was final at loading only. The 2026 edition introduces an alternative: quality and weight may now be final at discharge, provided the parties expressly agree. This is a welcome addition of flexibility, particularly for buyers who may prefer the certainty of a discharge inspection, but it is critical to note that the option is not self-executing. If the contract is silent, the old default (final at loading) continues to apply. Parties wishing to take advantage of the discharge option must therefore record their election in the body of the contract. Consistently with this change, the deficiency clause has been redrafted so that it bites only where final weighing takes place at discharge. The quality standard itself has also been strengthened by the addition of an express reference to ‘country of origin standard’ specifications, giving the clause an objective anchor that was previously absent.
The shipment extension provisions have been materially tightened. Under the old edition, a seller who missed the contractual shipment window could claim an extension of up to 15 additional days, with the first seven days attracting no price allowance at all and the maximum allowance of 1.5% not being reached until day 14-15. Under the new edition, the maximum extension has been almost halved to 8 days, and the allowance scale applies from day one: 0.5% for days 1 to 4, rising to 1% for days 5-6 and 1.5% for days 7-8. The practical effect is twofold. First, sellers have significantly less breathing room if shipment is delayed. Second, the financial penalty for delay now begins immediately, which should incentivise tighter scheduling. Sellers with exposure to congested ports or irregular vessel availability will want to factor this change into their operational planning.
On the insurance side, the minimum cover has been upgraded from Cargo Clauses (WA – With Average) to Cargo Clauses (All Risks), and the insured-value margin over invoice has been increased from 2% to 10%, with a corresponding increase in freight contingency cover. This is a meaningful enhancement of buyer protection: All Risks cover is broader than WA, and the higher insured margin provides a more realistic buffer against total-loss or general-average claims. The trade-off, inevitably, is cost. CIF/CIFFO sellers bear the insurance obligation, and the upgraded requirements will feed through into higher premiums and, ultimately, into the contract price. Buyers benefit from better cover but should expect this to be reflected in pricing.
The discharge clause has been simplified. The 2025 edition maintained a separate discharge regime for contracts on plain CIF or C&F terms (as opposed to CIFFO/C&FFO), including a now-outdated provision on discharge via lash barges. The 2026 edition removes both, leaving a single discharge regime applicable to all variants. This is a sensible piece of housekeeping, though parties intending to trade on plain CIF/C&F terms with a particular cost-sharing arrangement at discharge may wish to address this in their Special Conditions.
Two further changes are worth noting. The domicile clause now includes prorogation-of-jurisdiction wording for parties domiciled in Scotland or Northern Ireland, submitting disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. This wording was not carried over from an existing provision in Contract No. 120; rather, it was introduced simultaneously in the 2026 editions of both forms, harmonising Contract No. 122 with the parallel update made to Contract No. 120. Finally, all references to “Gafta Registered” superintendents and analysts have been updated to “Gafta Approved”, reflecting the renaming of the Gafta Approved Registers Scheme. This is a nomenclature change with no substantive effect on the parties’ rights or obligations.
What’s New in Contract No. 120
The headline change to Contract No. 120 is that it is no longer a Thailand-specific form. The previous edition was titled “FOB Contract for Thai Rice” and was drafted around the particular requirements of the Thai rice trade, including fixed references to Bangkok and Kosichang as loading ports, a prescribed loading rate of 1,200 tonnes per day, Thai-specific quality standards, and a requirement that the inspecting superintendent be registered in Thailand. The 2026 edition strips all of this away, reconceiving the contract as a general-purpose FOB rice form usable for any origin and any destination. The new title – “FOB Contract for Rice in Bags or Bulk” – signals the intent clearly. For the trade, this is a genuinely useful development: it means that traders shipping rice out of Vietnam, India, Pakistan, Cambodia, Myanmar or anywhere else now have access to a recognised GAFTA standard form on FOB terms, rather than having to draft bespoke contracts or heavily amend a form that was never designed for their trade.
The price clause illustrates the generalisation well. Where the 2025 edition prescribed “FOB Bangkok net shipped weight, 1 or 2 Safe Berths” with an option for buyers to request loading at Kosichang for a US$2.00 per tonne premium, the 2026 edition simply states “FOB stowed and trimmed net shipped weight” and leaves it to the parties to specify the load port. The loading-rate clause has been similarly opened up: the fixed 1,200-tonne daily rate and the Bangkok/Kosichang berth-switching mechanism have been removed, and the rate is now a blank for the parties to complete by reference to whatever port and vessel arrangement they have agreed. The letter-of-credit clause no longer specifies “Sellers’ nominated Bank in Bangkok” but simply “Sellers’ nominated Bank”, enabling the seller to nominate a bank in any jurisdiction.
The quality clause has been entirely rewritten. The old edition’s references to “Thai format standards”, “crop year” and the requirement to be “free from live infestation” have been removed and replaced with a generic reference to “country of origin standards”. This is a sensible approach: it anchors the quality obligation to an objective national standard without tying the contract to any one country’s specifications, and it means the same form can be used regardless of whether the rice originates in Thailand, India or elsewhere. As with Contract No. 122, the quality clause now permits final determination at discharge as well as at loading, by agreement, with final at loading remaining the default in the absence of express election.
The inspection and fumigation provisions have been freed from their Thai-specific constraints. The requirement for a superintendent “registered in Thailand” has been replaced by a reference to the Gafta Approved Register, enabling any appropriately qualified superintendent to act regardless of geography. The fixed fumigation rate of 2 grams of phosphine per cubic metre, previously hardcoded into the contract, has been removed altogether. Fumigation is now governed solely by the Gafta Fumigation Rules No. 132, which are incorporated by reference. This gives the parties flexibility to agree a fumigation treatment appropriate to the particular origin, cargo and destination, rather than being locked into a single prescriptive rate that may or may not be suitable.
As with Contract No. 122, all “Gafta registered superintendent” references have been updated to “Gafta Approved Superintendents” – a terminological housekeeping change with no substantive impact.
Legal View
- Are these changes useful? Yes. The generalisation of Contract No. 120 beyond Thai rice is a genuinely practical improvement that removes the need for bespoke FOB forms when trading non-Thai-origin rice. The addition of a bulk-trading option to Contract No. 122 reflects how the market actually operates. Both changes reduce transaction costs and increase standardisation.
- What should sellers watch? The shortened shipment extension window (8 days instead of 15, with allowances from day one) is a real tightening of seller discipline. Sellers facing logistics risk should factor this into scheduling and, where necessary, negotiate bespoke extension wording in the Special Conditions.
- What should buyers watch? The upgrade to All Risks cover and the increase in the insured margin from 2% to 10% is buyer-friendly, but will increase insurance costs and the landed price. Worth flagging in pricing discussions.
- A note on “final at discharge”. This option is not automatic; it only applies if expressly agreed. Silence means the old ‘final at loading’ default continues. Parties who want it need to say so.
Practical Recommendations
- Update templates. Standard sale / purchase confirmations should reference the 1 July 2026 edition expressly. For deals spanning the transition date, include a clause specifying which edition governs.
- Brief your trading desk. The shipment-extension and insurance changes have direct cost and scheduling implications. Flag them when rolling out the new forms.
- Agree ‘final at discharge’ expressly. If you want quality or weight to be determined at discharge, say so in the contract. Silence means the old rule applies.
How Fortior Can Assist
Whether you are negotiating a GAFTA contract, facing a dispute, or seeking strategic advice on international grain and rice trade, Fortior Law is here to help. Our team has extensive experience advising clients on GAFTA standard form contracts, arbitration proceedings and the resolution of complex cross-border commercial disputes. We provide practical, commercially focused guidance at every stage of the process – from contract drafting and risk management to dispute resolution and enforcement. We would be pleased to discuss how we can assist with your particular matter.
