THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW (무역상무연구)

The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law (한국무역상무학회)
권호 표지

A Study on the Legal Bases for the Gross Disparity under PICC

국제상사계약에 관한 일반원칙(PICC)하에서 현저한 불균형에 관한 법적 기준

  • Received : 2016.01.29
  • Accepted : 2016.02.19
  • Published : 2016.02.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts(PICC) was published in 1994. PICC has been functioned as a guideline of international commercial contracts, an applicable law to govern a contract by the agreement of the parties to a contract, general principles of law and lex mercatoria. In addition, PICC has a role of interpreting or supplementing international uniform law instruments as well as domestic laws, and also has served as a model for national and international legislations. PICC has been accepted as a authoritative source of knowledge of international trade usages of international commercial contracts to the arbitral tribunal rather than domestic court because it excluded the characteristics of hard law at the drafting stage. This article dealt with the rule on gross disparity of validity which fall outside the scope of UN Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG), which has obtained a leading legal position of uniform law in international sales of good. In other words, PICC suggests a series of meaningful solutions to the issue of gross disparity of contract which is the most complicated among legal disputes occurring during the process of conclusion of contact and also extremely different and diverse between legal systems. This article covered the issue of gross disparity of contract at the conclusion of contact and suggested the legal basis of several rules related to the gross disparity by analysing gross disparity rule of PICC. Furthermore, this article suggested legal check points or implication as well as interpretation and evaluation on doctrine of laesio enormis and undue influence or unconscionability. This article also dealt with a comparative analysis with Principles of European Contract Law(PECL) and Common European Sales Law(CESL) which have important legal positions in the area of international commercial contract as well as in terms of close relationship to PICC by linking with recent court or arbitral tribunal rulings.

Keywords

References

  1. 김갑유, 중재실무강의, 박영사, 2012.
  2. 김영주, "미국 판례법상 비양심성 법리의 전개", 기업법연구 제27권 제2호, 한국기업법학회, 2013.
  3. 김재형 역, 유럽계약법원칙 제1.2부, 법문사, 2013.
  4. 김재형, 계약의 공정성 확보 방안 연구, 법무부, 2014.
  5. 배상철, "약자적 관점에서 본 민법 제104조의 운용상의 문제점", 비교사법 제7권 제2호, 한국비교사법학회, 2000.
  6. 성준호, "로마법상 '막대한 손해'의 성립과 발전", 공공사회연구 제4권 제1호, 한국공공사회학회, 2014.
  7. 심갑영, "유럽공통매매법(CESL)하에서 계약책임에 관한 비교 연구", 대구대학교 대학원 박사학위 청구논문, 2015.
  8. 심종석, 국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN 협약(CISG)의 해석과 적용, 삼영사, 2015.
  9. 심종석, "PICC(2010) 재.개정규정에 대한 법적 기준", 경영법률 제25집 제4호, 한국경영법률학회, 2015.
  10. 심종석, "유럽공통매매법(CESL)상 계약의 종료단계에서의 법적 기준", 무역상무연구 제67권, 한국무역상무학회, 2015.
  11. 오원석, "국제물품매매계약에서 계약의 "유효성"(validity) 문제에 관한 CISG와 UNIDROIT 원칙의 입장비교와 적용상의 시사점", 무역학회지 제28권 제3호, 한국무역학회, 2003.
  12. 오원석.심윤수, " UNIDROIT Principles 2004 의 변경.신설내용의 개관", 무역상무연구 제25권, 한국무역상무학회, 2005.
  13. 이상욱, "프랑스 민법상의 불공정 행위 -lesion 법리를 중심으로-", 영남법학 제3권 제1․2호, 영남대학교 법학연구소, 1997.
  14. 이시환, "UNIDROIT Principles 2010에 관한 소고", 무역상무연구 제51권, 한국무역상무학회, 2011.
  15. 이우석, "영미법상의 비양심성 법리", 영남법학 제5권 제1.2호, 영남대학교 법학연구소, 1999.
  16. 최선영, "부당위압의 요건 -영국 판례 중심-", 법학연구 제55권 제2호, 부산대학교 법학연구소, 2014.
  17. Beale, H., Tallon, D., Vogenauer, S., Rutgers, J. W., & Fauvarque-Cosson, B., Cases, Materials and Text on Contract Law, 2nd ed., Hart Publishing, 2010.
  18. Black, A, "Unconscionability, Undue Influence and the Limits of Intervention in Contractual Dealings: Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v. Amadio", Sydney Law Review, Vol 1, 1986.
  19. Bonell, M. J., "UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts: Why What How", Tulane Law Review, Vol. 69, 1994.
  20. Craswell, R., "Property Rules and Liability Rules in Unconscionability and Related Doctrines", The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 60 No. 1, 1993.
  21. Enman, S. R., "Doctrines of Unconscionability in Canadian, English and Commonwealth Contract Law", Anglo-America Law Review, Vol 16, 1987.
  22. Hesselink, M. W., "Unconscionability, Unfair exploitation and the Nature of Contract Theory-Comments on Melvin Eisenberg's Foundational Principles of Contract Law", Centre for the Study of European Contract Law Working Paper Series 2013-03, 2013.
  23. Vogenauer, S., Kleinheisterkamp, J. (Eds.)., Commentary on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC), Oxford University Press, 2009.
  24. Kramer, E. A., "Contractual Validity According to the UNIDROIT Principles", European Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 1, 1999.
  25. Lake, S., "Empirical Study of the UNIDROIT Principles-International and British Responses", Uniform Law Review, Vol. 16, 2011.
  26. McKendrick, E., Contract Law: Text, Cases, And Materials, Oxford University Press, 2014.
  27. Micklitz, H. W., "The principles of European contract law and the protection of the weaker party", Journal of Consumer Policy, Vol. 27 No. 3, 2004.
  28. Rickett, C., "Unconscionability and Commercial Law", University of Queensland Law Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, 2005.
  29. Schwenzer, I., Hachem, P., & Kee, C., Global Sales and Contract Law, Oxford Univ. Press, 2012.
  30. Shiffrin, S. V., "Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accommodation", Philosophy and Public Affairs; Vol. 29 No. 3, 2000.
  31. Spector, H., "A Contract Arian Approach to Unconscionability", Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 81, 2006.
  32. Thal, S. N, "The Inequality of Bargaining Power Doctrine: The Problem of Defining Contractual Unfairness", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 8, 1988.
  33. UNIDROIT, Official Commentary on UNIDROIT Principle of International Commercial Contract 1994, 1994.
  34. UNIDROIT, Official Commentary on UNIDROIT Principle of International Commercial Contract 2010, 2010.
  35. Veneziano, A., "Soft Law Approach to Unification of International Commercial Contract Law: Future Perspectives in Light of UNIDROIT's Experience", Villanova Law Review, Vol. 58, 2013.
  36. Allcard v. Skinner (1887) 36 Ch D 145.
  37. Bautista v. Star Cruises 396 F.3d 1289, (11th Cir. 2005).
  38. CIBC Mortgages Plc v. Pitt [1994] A. C. 200.
  39. Lloyds Bank v Bundy [1975] 1 QB 326.
  40. Morrison v. Coast Finances Ltd. (1965), 55DLR(2d) 710.713(BCCA).
  41. National Westminster Bank Plc v morgan [1980] AC 614.
  42. R v. Attorney-General for England and Wadles (2003) UKPC 22.
  43. www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=1528&step=Abstract.
  44. www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=660&step=FullText.
  45. www.unilex.info/case.cfm?pid=2&do=case&id=660&step=Abstract.