Buyer and seller entered into a contract for the sale of sugar from the Philippines to New York on CIF terms. They added language to the contract that delivery was to be “at a customary safe wharf or refinery at New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore to be designated by the buyer.” Before the sugar arrived, the United States placed a quota on sugar imports. The sugar was not allowed to be imported and was placed in a customs warehouse. The buyer refused the documents and the seller sued, claiming that the import restriction was no excuse for the buyer’s nonpayment. The buyer argued that the language calling for delivery to a U.S. port converted a shipment contract into a destination contract. Was this a CIF contract or a destination contract? What was the effect of the additional shipping language the parties used? Why should the parties not attempt to modify a trade term or add other delivery language? Warner Bros. & Co. v. A.C. Israel, 101 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1939).