• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.95-124
• /
• 2012

Referring to Buyer's obligations, the Buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. There are vital importances to the Buyer's Fundamental Breach. The legal effects of a breach of contract do not depend on the nature of the obligation broken, but on the consequences of the breach the detriment to the other party. The obligations mentioned to Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. They include a number of different acts which could be seen as the subject-matter of different obligations. CISG gives further details for the payment of the price in Articles 54 to 59 and for taking delivery in Article 60. The buyer has to take delivery at the respective place within a reasonable period after this communication since he cannot be required to take delivery immediately. Refusing to take delivery in case of delay not constituting a ground for avoiding the contract makes no sense, since this would lead to even later delivery. For the understanding of Buyer's Fundamental Breach, We need to search the Cases referring to the breach of buyer's main obligations.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권3호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

무역계약의 이행기일은 매도인의 물품인도 기일과 매수인의 대금지급 기일이다. 신용장거래에서 무역계약의 이행기일은 신용장에서 명시된 선적기일과 서류매입기일로 본다. 매도인은 매수인으로부터 신용장을 받고나서 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하여야 하며 이 기간이 경과하면 매도인은 신용장을 거절할 수 없다. 그러나 매수인의 귀책 사유로 인하여 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하지 못하는 경우에는 신용장에 명시된 선적기일까지 연장된다. 매도인이 신용장 변경을 요청한 경우에 매수인은 반드시 이를 수락하여 매도인이 원하는 신용장을 변경하여 매도인에게 개설하여야 한다. 매수인이 매도인의 신용장 변경 요청을 거절하면 A사는 B사가 요청한 대로 신용장 내용을 변경하여 다시 개설할 의무가 있고 A사가 단순히 신용장의 변경을 지체한 것이 아니라 B사의 신용장 요청을 거절한 경우에는 B사가 견적서에 합의하여 기대할 수 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈하는 것으로 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약 제25조가 규정한 본질적인 계약위반에 해당되어 B사는 무역계약을 해제할 수 있고 A사에게 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. A사의 무역계약 위반으로 인한 손해배상액은 이익의 상실을 포함하여 그 위반의 결과 B사가 입은 손실과 동등한 금액으로 하여야 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.123-144
• /
• 2012

Seller shall deliver the goods with a perfect condition of packing or container in international trade. Unless otherwise seller shall warranty that the goods arrive at destination with a safe and economic value. Buyer may ask packing is to be made in specific condition or refuse to accept when the packing is not made in accordance with trade customs between among merchants. Especially packing is to be considered under the local law and process. Sometimes tax will be added to specific condition of packing for example glasses, metal sheet or others. Warning signs shall be included as form of both words and diagrams, and be in form of ensuring understanding in the local market. Wide range of warning signs can be used for communications and understanding of packing. Packing of a product can usefully symbolize a range of product information, or any relevant warnings, and give an opportunity for displaying messages of promoting the company and the goods. The seller may choose the best method to maintain its value but find a way to reduce packing cost, size for convenience during delivery, design, and local customs. There are many things to be considered for packing to seller. The purpose of packing is to protect the goods itself and to maintain its economic value during storage, delivery, transshipment, and distribution to end users.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제44권6호
• /
• pp.201-216
• /
• 2019

At present, there are various standards used as the governing law of contracts for establishing, implementing, and resolving disputes between the parties to international sales contracts, called "Forum Shopping." Uncertainty and increased transaction costs, which may arise from these various norms, may hinder the activation of international commerce. This study examines the process of enacting and examining various international unification norms that have emerged through international organizations to eliminate trade barriers caused by choice of governing law concerning parties involved in the international sale of goods. Issues regarding the positive and negative perspectives are discussed to identify obstacles to international unification norms. In particular, by comparing and analyzing the differences between the regulations of the CISG and PICC, the representative international unification norms on international sales contracts, the possibility of unification of the norms on international sales contracts are reviewed. Direction for the establishment of a single international regulation is presented for reducing the transaction costs and uncertainties in the international sale of goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2013

The Incoterms and United Nations Convention on Contract for the international Sales of Goods(CISG) allocate a risk in their articles. These rules make a decision that the parties who make a transaction are bound to bear the risk or damages of goods. Though a goods have a damages or loss during a transportation, buyer is liable for the payment of purchase price. In this case, this paper defines the meaning whether who can bear the risk under Incoterms and CISG. In the majority cases which deal between parties, after shipment or at the end of carriage, the loss or damages are found in buyer's hand. If a damages or loss is made during transit, customarily these risk are covered by insurance. Otherwise, these rules provide a tools for solving this problems. Then, between parties should be accomplished their target equitably.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2003

The CISG has been effective since January 1,1988. Even if both parties of international sales contract are located in ratifying countries, the CISG does not apply to certain excluded transactions. The CISG does not apply if the parties have opted out of the CISG. When the parties opt out, they usually agree on the law that is to replace the CISG. In the context of international sales, the frequent and difficult choice of law problems will arise when the CISG applies to a transaction but does not resolve all the legal issues before the tribunal. So this article deals with the question. What should we select the applicable law in such situations? (1) For products liability issues excluded from the CISG by article 4 and 5, the court should apply the substantive law of the market state and the statute of limitations law of the forum, (2) For validity issues excluded from the CISG by article 4(a). the court should apply the UNIDROIT Principles when its rules resolve the issue.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2011

International transactions have the threat of non-payment by the buyer or non-performance by the seller. Parties tend to search for additional means of securing performance and payment beyond the mere agreement in the contract. Such security may be achieved by means of a letter of credit. When contracting parties have agreed to pay by means of a letter of credit, the buyer's bank takes upon itself the obligation to pay the purchase price when the seller tenders the documents that are stipulated in the letter of credit. The documents must comply strictly with the terms of the credit.. The documents play a crucial role in letter of credit transaction. The principles of abstraction, separability and strict compliance governing the letter of credit transaction are considered. The concept of fundamental breach of Article 25 CISG was discussed. This article examines whether a failure to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the letter of credit can constitute a fundamental breach of the sales contract as defined by Article 25 of the CISG by the seller and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract. For letter of credit transactions it should be accepted that the delivery of non-performing documents constitutes a fundamental breach, if the result of this breach is that the bank refuses to pay the price for the goods. On the other hand, in the interpretation of Article 25 CISG, it should be noted that if the parties have agreed to payment by means of a letter of credit, they have simultaneously agreed to apply the strict compliance principle to the delivery of documents in the sales contract. Finally the parties should ensure that inconsistency between the requirements under the documentary credit and the requirements under the contract of sale is avoided, since the buyer may be in breach of his payment obligation if the seller cannot get paid under the documentary credit when his documents conform with the contract of sale.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제42권5호
• /
• pp.19-42
• /
• 2017

오늘날 일반적으로 국제상거래에서는 매수인과 매도인이 표준화된 서식을 이용하여 서로 거래한다. 서식분쟁은 이러한 서식의 교환의 결과이다. 서식분쟁에서 해결되어야 하는 몇 가지 문제들이 있다. 예를 들어, 상이한 조건의 교환으로 계약이 성립하는가? 계약조건은 무엇인가? 어느 당사자의 조건을 적용할 것인가? 누구의 것인가? 등이다. 2015년, 헤이그 국제사법회의는 헤이그준거법원칙을 최종적으로 승인하였다. 해당 원칙은 서식분쟁을 다루고 있다. 또한 2013년, CISG 자문위원회는 CISG에 의거한 표준조건의 편입과 관련한 문제를 해결하기 위한 효과적인 방법을 제기하기 위하여 "Black letter rules"를 채택하였다. 본 연구는 헤이그준거법원칙과 CISG에서 서식분쟁을 관련 규정과 사례를 종합적으로 검토하였다. 본 연구의 목적은 양당사자의 서식분쟁 문제를 해결하기 위한 적절한 실무적 해결방안을 제안하는 데 있다.