Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative Study of the Requirements for the Buyer's Right to Require Delivery of Substitute Goods under the CISG and the Korean Civil Act

  • Lee, Yoon (Department of International Trade, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2021.11.30
  • Accepted : 2022.02.11
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.

Keywords

References

  1. Baek, Kyung-Il (2015), An Introduction to the Study of Obligatory Law, Seoul: Goraesidae.
  2. Bergsten, E. (2004), "CISG-AC Opinion no 2, Examination of the Goods and Notice of Non-Conformity-Articles 38 and 39", Internationales Handelsrecht, 4(4), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1515/ihr.2004.4.4.163
  3. Bridge, M., Y. Atamer, E. Bergsten, J. Bonell, S. Laura Gama, A. Garro, R. Goode, J. Gotanda, H. Shiyuan, J. Herre, P. Viscasillas, I. Schwenzer, H. Sono, C. Witz and M. Djordjevic (2021), "Delivery of substitute goods and repair under the CISG", Nordic Journal of Commercial Law, 2021(1), 45-92.
  4. Honnold, J. O. (1989), Documentary History of the 1980 Uniform Law for International Sales: the Studies, Deliberations and Decisions that led to the 1980 United Nations Convention with introductions and explanations, Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers.
  5. Honnold, J. and H. Flechtner (2009), Uniform Law for International Sales under the 1980 United Nations Convention (4th ed.), Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
  6. Huber, P. and A. Mullis (2009), The CISG: A New Textbook for Students and Practitioners, Zutphen, Netherlands: European Law Publishers.
  7. Kang, Hye-Lim (2017), "Limitation on the Buyer's Right to Conforming Goods in a Sale of Unascertained Goods", Kyong-Hee Law Review, 52(2), 329-380.
  8. Kim, Jae-Hyung (2015), "Limitation on the Buyer's Right to Conforming Goods in a Sale of Unascertained Goods", Comparative Private Law, 22(4), 1615-1670.
  9. Kim, Jae-Hyung (2016), "Diversifying the Remedies under Korean Civil Law: Proposed Amendment concerning Right to Enforce Performance, Right to Cure, and Right to Injunction", Seoul Law Journal, 57(4), 101-141.
  10. Kroll, S., L. Mistelis and P. P. Viscasillas (2018), UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (the CISG) (2nd ed.), Munchen, Germany: C. H. Beck.
  11. Kwak, Yun-Jik (2003), Particulars in Obligatory Law, Seoul: Pakyoungsa.
  12. Lee, Byung-Mun (2001), A Comparative Study on the Seller's Liability for Non-conforming Goods Under CISG, English Law, European Law and Korean Law (Doctoral dissertation), Coventry, England: University of Warwick.
  13. Lee, Byung-Mun (2009), "The Liability System and the Legal Nature of the Seller s Liability for Defective Goods under Korean Law and the PELS", The International Commerce and Law Review, 44, 31-55.
  14. Lee, Byung-Mun (2010), "A Comparative Study on the Seller's Liability for the Delivery of Defective Goods under Korean Law and the PELS", Journal of Korea Trade, 14(2), 1-28.
  15. Lee, Eun-Young (2007), Particulars in Obligatory Law, Seoul: Pakyoungsa.
  16. Lee, Sang-Kwang (1998), "The Basic Matters in the Seller's Guarantee liability", Comparative Private Law, 5(1), 283-314.
  17. Lee, Yoon and Byung-Mun Lee (2021), "A Study on the Right to Require Delivery of Substitute Goods and Repair under the CISG", The International Commerce and Law Review, 91, 87-113. https://doi.org/10.35980/KRICAL.2021.08.91.87
  18. Lookofsky, J. (2017), Understanding the CISG:(Worldwide) Edition, Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
  19. Powers, P. J. (1999), "Defining the Undefinable: Good Faith and the United Nations Convention on the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods", Journal of Law and Commerce, 18(2), 333-354.
  20. Schlechtriem, P. (2006), "Subsequent performance and delivery deadlines-Avoidance of CISG sales contracts due to non-conformity of the goods", Pace International Law Review, 18, 83-98. https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3536.1073
  21. Schwenzer, I. (2016), Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (the CISG) (4th ed.), New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  22. Song, Deok-Soo (2021), The Civil Code, Seoul: Pakyoungsa.
  23. Spangnolo, L. (2007), "Opening Pandora's Box: Good Faith and Precontractual Liability in the CISG", Temple International & Comparative Law Journal, 21(2), 261-310.
  24. Yoon, Gil-Hong (2015), Particulars in Obligatory Law, Seoul: Bubwonsa.