• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.7
• /
• pp.451-462
• /
• 2001

국제물품매매계약은 당사자간의 합의에 의해서 이루어진다. 그러나 국제간의 물품매매에 관련하여 모든 상황을 특정계약에 반영하는데는 한계가 있다. 따라서 특정계약에 대한 해석과 판단의 기준이 되는 하나의 보편적이며 합리성에 기초를 둔 준거법이 필요하게 된다. 이러한 준거법은 어느 특정국가의 사범으로 충분할 수도 있지만 국제거래가 안전하고 원활하게 실행되기 위해서는 그것이 세계 어느 나라에 있어서도 같은 내용의 통일적인 법에 의하여 규율되는 것이 바람직하다. 특히 경제적 합리성에 기초를 둔 거래법의 분야에서는 이론적으로 법의통일은 가능하며 실제적으로는 로마의 사법통일협회(UNIDROIT)나 국제연합 국제상거래위원회(UNIDROIT)에 의하여 지금까지 어느 정도 통일사법 제정의 필요성이 꾸준히 제기 되어 왔다. 이러한 목적을 수행하기 위하여 UNICITRAL(국제연합 국제상거래위원회)이 1980년에 발표한 국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN 조약-비엔나협약(CISG)은 국제간의 물품매매에 관한 계약법으로서 중요한 역할을 수행하고 있다. 비엔나협약(CISG)의 법리적인 근거는 "자주적인 준거법의 제정 및 그 적용상의 통일성"에 있다는 것이다. 또한 그 내용을 보면 첫째, 지역적 의미를 가지는 법률용어의 사용을 피하고 대신 격지간의 계약시 실제로 발생하는 현실적 사례의 관점에서 법안을 작성하고자 하였고 둘째, 그 내용을 달리하고 있는 각국의 사법을 통일하는 것에 의해 모든 사법적 법률관계에 같은 내용의 사법을 적용하는 방법, 즉 세계통일사법의 제정이라 하겠다. 본 연구는 비엔나협약(CISG)의 입법취지와 배경을 고찰하였으며 또한 통일사법으로서 협약상의 "일반원칙의 통용"을 계약성립(Formation of Contract)의 과정별로 정리하였다.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.27-50
• /
• 2018

This study focuses on the judgement of Seoul High Court' regarding the formation and performance of contracts applying the CISG. The purpose of this study is to provide legal understanding to contracting parties involved in contract for the international sale of goods that can be considered in raising the understanding of the CISG within the scope of the subject. This study aimed at the legal validity of judgments, the defects in reason for judgments and legal standards that could be established. The main contribution of this study is summarizing the facts of judgments and arguments of the parties and furthermore, in accordance with the order, the judgment order of the court and the decision criteria of the application law, the CISG articles comment and interpretation on the formation of the contract, legal bases of fundamental breach of contract, termination of contract, concurrent fulfillment and other supplementary matters and so on.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.15-39
• /
• 2016

Over the past couple of decades, we can see the emergence of a new lex mercatoria. It consists of international conventions or treaty, model laws and international principles. And such new lex mercatoria is driven by the international institutions such as UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and ICC. The international convention and international principles in the field of international commercial transaction are considered : UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) and The UNIDROIT Principles(PICC Principles). The former is the statue law for the latter, and the latter sometimes supports the former as an interpretation and supplementation of CISG. So, the purpose of this article is to evaluate and investigate the current status of CISG and PICC Principles in terms of application and interpretation principles. The results are as follows. First, PICC are used for the interpretation and supplementation of international law such as CISG, but CISG is a law, not a rule. Second, CISG and PICC Principles are not often chosen when parties chose the law governing their contract. The parties very often chose a national law ; the number of the parties choosing CISG and PICC Principles as a governing law was very low.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 1995

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.199-224
• /
• 2013

Section I of Chapter III ('Obligations of the Buyer') in Part III ('Sale of Goods') of the CISG consists of six articles addressing one of the fundamental buyer obligations described in article 53 of the CISG: the obligation to pay the price. Although the amount of the price that the buyer must pay is usually specified in the contract, two articles in Section I contain rules governing the amount of the price in particular special circumstances: article 55 specifies a price when one is not fixed or provided for in the contract, and article 56 specifies the way to determine the price when it is 'fixed according to the weight of the goods'. The remaining four provisions in Section I relate to the manner of paying the price: they include rules on the buyer's obligation to take steps preparatory to and to comply with formalities required for paying the price (article 54); provisions on the place of payment (article 57) and the time for payment (article 58); and an article dispensing with the need for a formal demand for payment by the seller (article 59). Especially article 53 states the principal obligations of the buyer, and serves as an introduction to the provisions of Chapter III. As the CISG does not define what constitutes a 'sale of goods', article 53, in combination with article 30, also sheds light on this matter. The principal obligations of the buyer are to pay the price for and take delivery of the goods 'as required by the contract and this CISG'. From this phrase, as well as from article six of the CISG, it follows that, where the contract provides for the performance to take place in a manner that differs from that set forth in the CISG, the parties' agreement prevails.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

This paper examines the seller's obligation to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the sales contract as set forth in articles 30 and 34 of the CISG. Article 30 obliges the seller to band over documents relating to the goods. This obligation to band over documents is further elaborated in article 34. According to article 34, the documents must be tendered at the time and place, and in the form, required by the contract. If the seller has delivered non-conforming documents before the agreed time, he has the right to remedy the defects if this would not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or expense. However, the buyer can claim any damages suffered despite the seller's remedy. Specific emphasis is placed on the interplay between the CISG and Incoterms. Incoterms contain detailed rules governing the obligations of the seller to provide for documents. Incoterms constitute international trade usage under articles 9(1) and 9(2) CISG and supplement construction of CISG with UCP under L/C transaction. In the event of failure by seller to deliver the necessary documents, the buyer has certain remedies available, such as the right to claim damages, the right to demand specific performance, and the right to repair. Furthermore, the failure to deliver the required documents under contract constitute a fundamental breach of the underlying sales contract as defined by article 25 of the CISG by the seller, and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract entirely article 49. However, it is stressed that since one of the main principles of the CISG is the preservation of the contract, the avoidance of the contract should remain a remedy of last resort.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.31-48
• /
• 2012

If see CISG's passing of risk and altered regulations first, when sales contract accompanies transport of goods and seller does not have duty to deliver goods at particular place, when deliver to the first carter to send to purchaser according to sales contract risk passes to purchaser, and when there is duty that seller must deliver goods to carter at specification place, when goods are delivered to carter at same place, risk does not pass to purchaser. Second, risk about transporting goods passes to purchaser at signing a contract. But, when there is special assessment, risk passes to purchaser when goods are delivered to carter who publish document that embody contract of carriage. Nevertheless, it is loss if seller did not notify this truth to occasion purchaser who could knew loss or damage of goods or know justly at sales contract conclusion defamation danger seller of be burdensome. Third, seller has responsibility about damage or loss as long as hide in own artificiality or forbearance after risk passes to purchaser. Regulation about risk in Incoterms 2010 was separated into 11 condition, and move time of risk differs in angle condition. It is appeared that the substance handles relatively comprehensively because compare in Incoterms 2010 although it is because it becomes if it examines regulation about deliver and passing of risk of goods setting in CISG relatively concise. Also, segments that can become posibility of analysis controversy exist.