• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2017

The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Article 38 lays down a fundamental principle that requires the buyer to examine quickly the goods delivered by the seller. Article 38 (1) provides that the examination be made within as short a period as practicable in the circumstances. The goods have to be examined within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The rule is based on the fundamental idea of reasonableness, meaning that the buyer must examine the goods as soon as reasonably possible. It may be said that the buyer should act reasonably fast. Article 38 (2), (3) concerns sales involving carriage of the goods, where the seller's obligation to deliver consists in handing the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. In this case the buyer is generally able to examine the goods only after they have come to destination. Article 38 (3) takes into account the case where the buyer redirects the goods in transit or re-dispatches them to another destination. Redirection in transit occurs when the destination is changed before the goods are received by the buyer. The buyer could re-dispatch the goods without having them unloaded, or re-dispatch them through another carrier.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

• 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.12
• /
• pp.277-293
• /
• 1999

As the CISG has been legislated for a new legal system playing roles as uniform rules which govern international sale of goods, it requires appropriate criterion of interpretation. The Convention distinguishes between two levels of interpretation. One concerns the interpretation of the rules of contract law contained in the CISG itself, and the other the interpretation of specific statements or the conduct of the individual parties to a transaction.

• 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.16 no.3
• /
• pp.159-182
• /
• 2014

CISG Article 71 (1) states that a party may suspend the performance of his obligations if, after the conclusion of the contract, it becomes apparent that the other party will net perform a substantial part of his obligations as a result of a serious deficiency in his ability to perform or in his creditworthiness or his conduct in preparing to perform or in perfoming the contract. CISG Article 71 (2) states a 'right of stoppage in transit' that if the seller has already dispatched the goods before the grounds described in the preceding paragraph become evident, he may prevent the handing over of the goods to the buyer even though the buyer holds a document which entitles him to obtain them. The present paragraph relates only to the rights in the goods as between the buyer and the seller. Under the right of stoppage in transit, the carrier copes with risks that the seller may claim damages arose from the handing over the goods, if he hand over the goods to the buyer and that the buyer may claim damages, if he deny handing over the goods to the buyer who has the document which entitles him to obtain the goods. Therefore the legal position of the carrier may become weak. This paper purpose to point out the legal weakness of the carrier under the right of stoppage in transit and to provide the proper legal act of the carrier and possible practice related to various characters of the contract of sale of the goods. Although there is the opinion it prevent from handing over the goods to the buyer actually under the interpretation that the buyer should take claim damages to the seller, if the goods are handed over to the buyer under the right of stoppage in transit, it is not appropriate because the opinion may disable the right of stoppage in transit. The right of stoppage in transit could be carried out under any payment conditions except letter of credit and under any mode of transportation except the cases that carrier is the buyer himself or the agent of the buyer. It could be executed regardless the forms of the transport document.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

U. N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter the 'CISG' or the 'Convention') has been in force more than 37 years. The CISG responds to the need for uniform sales law. First of all, the biggest barrier against the uniformity in sales law is so-called "homeward trend". Professor Honnold, who served as secretary of UNCITRAL during the time in which the CISG was developed, pointed out the danger of "homeward trend" like this in his Article. "One threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law." CISG Article 79 is the principal provision governing the extent to which a party is exempt from liability for a failure to perform any of his obligations due to an impediment beyond his control. So-called 'Manfred Forberich' decision regarding the article 79 represents the most extreme example of what is likely the most dangerous error that tribunals applying the CISG can make. CISG Article 79 only governs impossibility of performance, and there is a controversy whether a disturbance which does not fully exclude performance, but it considerably more difficult or onerous(hardship, change of circumstances, economic impossibility) can be considered as an impediment. Unlike PICC and PECL, the CISG governs contract of sale. Therefore, events such as a sudden increase in the price of raw materials or a dramatic devaluation of currency, will not allow the seller to avoid his liability for non-delivery of the goods or to require renegotiation of the terms of the contract of sale. We should bear in mind that the CISG should be interpreted and applied in the context of the CISG itself.

• 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.