• Korean Business Review
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.303-321
• /
• 1999

Electronic commerce, driven by the development of the Internet and computer, premises to be an important engine for growth for the world economy in th the 21st century. Electronic commerce offers considerable new opportunities for the business and citizens in all regions of the world by enhancing productivity across of our economics and encourage trade in both goods and services. Specially in relation to contract, electronic commerce requires a coherent, coordinated approach internationally on key issues such as a validity, a legality, consumer protection. Electronic commerce, which breaks down national boundaries and widens the gap between the place where services are performed and the place where they are consumed, requires a new paradigm when making an between contracting parties.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

The United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) is legislated for unified of international sale of goods, but does not cover all concerns related to that. Arilce 4 provides the exclusions of CISG. These exclusions might be govern by a domestic law. This paper analyses what are excluding under CISG Article 4, and then provides the Korean and Chinese domestic regulations related to them. At first, whether some issues are excluding based on the interpretation of CISG Article 4 depends on the agreement of parties concerned. An issue that a national law applies even might be invalid if it does not follow the general principles of CISG. In Conclusion, CISG does not cover the validity of the contract and the property in the goods sold under CISG Article 4. a company who trades with Chines company should understand the differences of both countries' regulations about the validity of the contract and the effect of property transfer and be careful to decide a govern law to avoid unnecessary disputes about these issues even though their contract is govern by CISG.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) endeavors to increase international trade through the creation of a uniform law of international sales. The CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business if that which has the closest relationship to the contract and its performance. Despite the importance of a definition for 'place of business,' the CISG does not provide one. Lack of a definition of 'place of business' may cause problems for parties trying to determine whether the CISG applies to their contract. Also Contracting parties can opt out of the CISG. But the CISG does not state whether the parties must expressly exclude the CISG's application to a transaction or whether they might do so by implication. we need to consider how effectively opt out of the CISG. Under U.S. law, the CISG is considered to be a self-executing treaty. So the CISG's provisions apply directly as substantive sales law to contracts for the international sale of goods. Despite the CISG's political and economic significance to U.S., U.S. Courts have overlooked the terms of the CISG. This article considered how to the CISG was recognized, interpreted and applied by the U.S. Courts in related cases.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.1-36
• /
• 2016

Unlike continental European legal systems (civil law systems), specific performance in common law refers to an equitable remedy requiring exactly the performance that was specified in a contract. It usually granted only when money damages would be an inadequate remedy and the subject matter of the contract is unique. Thus, under common law specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. Consistent with the practice in civil law jurisdictions, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) makes specific performance the normal remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. Therefore, the buyer may require a breaching seller to deliver substitute goods or to make any reasonable repair. Likewise, the sellermay require the buyer to taker delivery of goods and pay for them. Despite this, Article 28 of the CISG restricts the availability of specific performance where it would be unavailable under the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located. Thus, the CISG's more liberal policy toward specific performance is restricted by common law. There are some legal issues in CISG's specific performance availability by Article 28. This paper analyzes these issues as interpreting Article 28 of CISG, by examining various theories of application to actions for specific performance and comparing CLOUT cases involving CISG Article 28.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.21-40
• /
• 2016

This study mainly deals with a recent case held as to the formation of contract under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(CISG). In order to analyse the fact of the case and the justification of its holdings, it examines the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. In addition to these, it particularly investigates the rules on a delayed acceptance under the CISG. After looking into those rules, it criticizes the holdings and provides legal and practical advice to contracting parties who intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. It finds that whose e-mail in the case amounts to an offer and an acceptance is depended upon the interpretation of intention of the parties expressed in their statement. According to such interpretation, even if a purchase order is requested by the seller for the formation of contract, a contract may be concluded by a simple statement which commits the buyer himself to purchase the seller's goods. This is particularly the case where such request is made only to clarify the buyer's intention to purchase them.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.5
• /
• pp.19-42
• /
• 2017

Nowaday typically international commercial transaction, buyer and seller communicate with each other using standard forms. So called "the battle of forms" results from the exchanges of these forms. There are several problems that have to be solved in the battle of the forms. For example, Do the exchanges of the different terms form a contract? What are the contract terms? Which party's terms could apply? etc. Around the world, two basic types of rules are applied to solve the problem as to the battle of forms : last-shot rule and knock-out rule. In 2015, Hague Conference in Private International Law finally approved Hague Principles. The principles deal with the battle of the forms. Also in 2013, CISG Advisory Council adopted the "Black letter rules" to provide an effective way of resolving regarding the inclusion of standard terms under the CISG. This study would try to comprehensively review the battle of forms concerning Hague Principles and CISG. The aim of this study is to propose the most appropriate way to resolve the problem of the battle of forms both parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.179-199
• /
• 2016

There is legal relation between both parties after contract formation. The parties are liable for performing each duties but a party is not liable for a failure to perform the duties if party proves that the failure was due to the force majeure. The forec majeure has different concepts and legal principles such as change circumstance, hardship, frustration, impediment and so on. Therefore, it need to analyze a historical background and their presence in various domestic legal systems. Although the CISG describes Art. 79 impediment instead of using the force majeure, the impediment has several interpretative limitation. The CISG pursue to harmonize divergent legal concepts and principles from various national laws and legal systems but the harmonization of legal systems make the impediment more confused. The article goes on to analyzes about limitation of the impediment and reviews to examine the force majeure and hardship in PICC. Thus both parties of international contract insert hardship clause in order to prevent the problem of judgment in a court or a court of arbitration under impediment of CISG.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2009

This paper deals with disputes incurred from the CISG provisions in relation with the conformity of goods with a view to finding the general way of approach made by the court and arbitration tribunal in the case laws for the interpretation of CISG based on 6(six) cases thereon. Throughout this study, it has been noted that the German Supreme Court devoted most in creating the general principle of CISG interpretation in relation with national compulsory law of regulation applicable on the conformity of goods. It was New Zealand mussels case in which the German supreme court decided that the exporting country's compulsory law of regulation would be applied in determining the conformity of goods. Furthermore, German supreme court added that CISG does not place an obligation on the exporter to supply goods, which conform to all statutory or other public provisions in force in the import state unless the same provisions exist in the export State as well, or the importer informed the exporter about such provisions existing in the import state, or the exporter had knowledge of the provisions due to special circumstances. It is stipulated in CISG that the goods conform with contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used. When questions arise concerning matters governed by the CISG that are not expressly defined in the CISG, the question is to be settled in conformity with general principles on which the convention is based. Only when such a general principle cannot be found may the tribunal turn to other sources such as UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law and Lex Mercatoria, etc. Interpretation of CISG should be autonomous, in the sense that it should not depend on principles and concepts derived from any national legal system. Even where a CISG rule is directly inspired by domestic law, the court should not fall back on its domestic law, but interpret the rule by reference to the CISG with a view to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.