• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제12권4호
• /
• pp.385-404
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this article is to examine the Delays of Performance under UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In theory, there exist three clearly distinguishable categories of breach of contract, namely non-performance, non-conforming performance and late performance. In particular, delays of performance are the most common breach of sales contract including late delivery, late payment or late performance of any other obligation. In this regard, this article examines how parties can, through careful drafting, avoid or minimize legal problems in case of delay in performance. Especially, the export perspective focuses on the seller's interests, which require that sanctions be as lenient as possible if the seller has breached the contract but that there are prompt and adequate sanctions if the buyer has breached the contract. Furthermore, the seller should ensure that a short or medium delay in delivery will not entitle the buyer to declare the contract immediately avoided and take precautions against late payment, including delayed opening of a letter of credit.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2012

CISG article 74 establishes the general formula applicable in all cases where an aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages. It provides that damages for breach of contract comprise all losses, including loss of profits, caused by the breach, to the extent that these losses were foreseeable by the breaching party at the time the contract was concluded. An aggrieved party may claim under article 74 even if entitled to claim under article 75 or 76. The latter articles explicitly provide that an aggrieved party may recover additional damages under article 74. Articles 75 and 76 apply only in cases where the contract has been avoided. Article 75 measures damages concretely by reference to the price in a substitute transactions, while article 76 measures damages abstractly by reference to the current market price. Article 76 (1) provides that an aggrieved party may not calculate damages under article 76 if it has concluded a substitute transaction under article 75. If however, an aggrieved party concludes a substitute transaction for less than the contract quantity, both articles 75 and 76 may apply. Pursuant to article 77, damages recoverable under articles 74, 75 or 76 are reduced if it is established that the aggrieved party failed to mitigate losses. The reduction is the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated. Article 78 entitles a party to interest on the price and any other sum that is in arrears.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.235-253
• /
• 2000

As to the sphere of application, Article 78 CISG undoubtedly applies to interest on the purchase price. Furthermore, the provision also applies to "any other sum that is in arrears". This language has been interpreted to encompass expenses that one party had on behalf of the other as well as reimbursements when the purchase price is reduced according to Article 50 CISG. However, it is questionable whether this language also extends to claims for damages. Legal scholars seem to agree that one has a right to interest on damage claims under Article 78 if the amount in question has been liquidated vis-a-vis the other party. Whether this right to interest also applies to unliquidated sums, is controversial, however. In this study, as a result of taking into account the puspose of Article 78, we could find the fact that regardless of whether the exact amount of damages has been specified yet, the breaching party still owes compensation to the other party from the time of the breach and, accordingly, the non-breaching party should be entitled to interest payments on the loss from that time. Consequently, Article 78 applies not only to liquidated but also to unliquidated damages.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• 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.