• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.119-148
• /
• 2015

Generally, the liability for breach is defined as the civil liability that arises from the conduct of violation of a contract. There are two notable principles governing liability for breach that have fundamental impacts on the unified Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter Chinese Contract Law) in the remedies. In China, during the drafting of the Contract Law, there was a great debate as to whether damages for breach of contract ought to follow the fault principle or to follow the strict liability principle. Ultimately the Chinese Contract Law follows the model of the CISG on this point, namely, it follows the strict liability principle (article 107) with an exemption cause of force majeure. Under Chinese Contract Law, it is interpreted as strict liability in principle. Strict Liability is a notion introduced into Chinese Contract Law from the Anglo-Saxon Law. The strict liability or no fault doctrine, on the contrary, allows a party to claim damages if the other party fails to fulfill his contractual obligations regardless of the fault of the failing party. Pursuant to the strict liability doctrine, if the performance of a contract is due, any non-performance will constitute a breach and the fault on the party in breach is irrelevant. This paper reviews problems of legal character or legal ground of contractual liability in Chinese contract law. Specifically, focusing on the interpretation of Chinese contract law sections and analysis of three cases related contractual liability in freight agency, the paper proposes some implications of structural features of Chinese contract law and international commercial transactions.

• Journal of Korea Entertainment Industry Association
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.323-335
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to organize issues of exclusive contracts for celebrities, which have been a major part of the existing industry, in preparation for various contract disputes in the media entertainment industry, and disputes in the media entertainment industry. According to the law case analysis conducted to achieve the purpose of the study, the court judged that the exclusive contract that did not conform to society's conventional wisdom was not effective, and that it was difficult to maintain the contract because it was not a normal contract. In addition, the court believed that unreasonable contracts using unfair trading status and overly long contracts were all reasons for termination. According to the court's judgment, the current standard contract requires about four revisions. First, clarification of contract termination conditions, second, clarification of payment date of revenue allocation, third, diversification of contract periods, and fourth, realistic modification of penalty provisions. Standard contracts have been enacted after several discussions, but there are still many things to revise and supplement. It will not end up with the preparation and use of contracts, but it will be necessary to continuously revise them to suit the industry's situation.