Agreeing a Landed Amount
An agreement on what must arrive puts the whole descent on the payer, and it is a term that exists.
Still yours, and statedTaken, never statedUnit changes; scale restarts
Three steps from instruction to arrival. One step carries no figure: the hatching marks where the money leaves and is not drawn to scale, because there is no figure to draw. Nothing here adds them up, since an amount you cannot see is not an amount you can subtract. The section that is about the near end, because the far end is not available.
The same month under the two agreements, drawn against the same route
Identical at the top; everything below is where the two readings part
Charged either way, and under the landed wording it is the payer's to cover
Unchanged by any wording: the route takes what the route takes
Also unchanged; the wording moves who absorbs it, not whether it happens
The last deduction, and the last point at which the two readings still look alike
What arrives when the agreed figure is the figure instructed
The same route, the same deductions, and the payer instructing whatever it takes
Still yours, and statedTaken, never statedUnit changes; scale restarts
Seven steps · Two without a figure · no total of what is not stated
Seven lines, one route and a difference of five points. Nothing here is added up, since two steps carry no figure, and the wording changes none of them: it changes only who notices. One person's own payment under both wordings; what any route deducts differs by route, by bank and by country.
An agreement that a stated figure must arrive, rather than be sent, puts every deduction in the chain on the payer. It is an ordinary commercial term, it is understood by any finance team, and it is the single most useful thing in this collection.
The payment record in “Agreeing a Landed Amount” becomes more useful when the work behind it is equally clear. A distributed team considering Monitask resources for attendance point system for attendance point system can connect approved time and projects with invoices or payroll inputs, while keeping exchange rates, fees and accounting decisions in the responsible financial system.
It changes nothing about the route and everything about who carries it.
As a separate reference point for “Agreeing a Landed Amount”, see European Central Bank. Confirm broad guidance against current provider disclosures and qualified financial or tax advice where needed.
What the term says
That the payer shall ensure the stated sum is received cleared and in full, with all transfer charges and conversion costs for their account. One sentence.
The word doing the work is "received". An agreement to pay is ambiguous; an agreement that a sum is received is not.
Add the account currency as well, so that the figure cannot be read as the payer's currency converted at whatever rate applies on the day.
Why it is reasonable to ask
The payer chooses the route, the bank, the charge instruction and the date. Everything that determines the shortfall is theirs to decide and none of it is yours.
Putting the consequence where the decisions are made is the ordinary commercial logic, not a favour.
It is also how most business-to-business supply works already. A supplier quoting a price does not expect the buyer's bank charges to come out of it.
What it costs them
Usually less than people expect: a charge instruction change, a flat fee, and occasionally a few units of top-up.
The figure is small enough that most payers agree once it is quantified, which is why the measurement notes come earlier in this collection.
The objection about intermediaries
That they cannot control what a correspondent takes. True, and it does not follow that they cannot guarantee an arrival.
Three things they can do and you cannot:
- Instruct charges to their own account.
- Choose a route that does not use correspondents.
- Make up a shortfall when it happens.
All three are theirs to arrange.
Where it genuinely burdens somebody
An individual payer using a consumer service with no charge options, or a very small business with one banking relationship.
For them, ask for a stated allowance instead: the agreed figure plus a fixed amount to cover charges, reviewed annually against what actually arrived.
The allowance version
Simpler to administer and almost as effective. It fails only when the route gets unexpectedly worse, which is what the annual review is for.
Set the allowance from measurement rather than from guesswork. Three months of records gives the number.
Round it up slightly. An allowance that is right on average produces a shortfall half the time, which is the thing the arrangement was meant to stop.
Drafting it
Avoid "pay" and "transfer", both of which are ambiguous about which end the figure refers to. Use "shall receive" and name the account currency.
Two words, and they remove an argument that otherwise recurs monthly for the life of the arrangement.
Adding a tolerance
A small band — a few units either way — prevents monthly correspondence about rounding, which nobody wants.
Name the figure. A tolerance described as reasonable is not a tolerance.
How shortfalls are settled
The cleanest mechanism is a top-up added to the next payment rather than a separate transfer, which would attract its own charges.
Say so in the term. Otherwise somebody sends forty units internationally and most of it disappears on the way.
Introducing it to an existing arrangement
Measure first, present the figures, and ask for the term at a natural moment: a renewal, a rate review, a new piece of work.
Ask for this one rather than for a list. It subsumes the charge instruction, the route and most of the rest of this collection.
What to do when it is refused
Fall back to charges borne by the sender, which is narrower, cheaper for them and still removes the correspondent deductions.
A refusal of the full term is not a refusal of everything, and the fallback is usually granted immediately.
What the term cannot deliver
Timing. An agreement about the amount says nothing about the date, and a payment that is correct to the unit and eleven days late is still eleven days late.
The two have to be agreed separately and people regularly win the first and forget the second. A complete arrangement names the figure that must arrive and the day by which it must, and those are two sentences rather than one.
Ask for both in the same message. Two sentences cost no more goodwill than one and they settle the arrangement completely.