• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.273-290
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the buyer's right to avoid the contract under SGA and CISG. Design/methodology/approach - This paper has conducted literature reviews to analyze the right to avoid the contract of the buyer based on the comparative study. Findings - Under s. 11(3) of SGA, the breach of a condition and an intermediate which deprives the buyer substantially of the whole benefit of the contract may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. But under Art. 49 of CISG, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract where the seller's failure to performance amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. Regarding the breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG, the buyer should take into account where the seller's breach is fundamental or not. Moreover, an anticipatory breach can give rise to a right to avoid the contract. The anticipatory breach of a condition justifies termination. The breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG require an anticipatory fundamental breach of the contract. Under SGA, the buyer has to prove an anticipatory breach in fact but CISG does not require virtual certainty, which SGA has stricter criteria to assess an anticipatory breach. Research implications or Originality - Comparative study helps to understand the nature of provisions under SGA and CISG and suggests practical advice to choose applicable laws. SGA gives more certainty to classify a contractual term. In case of the breach of a condition including the anticipatory breach under SGA, the buyer does not have to ask how much serious the breach is. But CISG requires the fundamental breach of the contract, which means that the buyer has the more burden of proof compared with SGA.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2008

CISG provides the Convention's default provisions on anticipatory breach. Article 71 permits the aggrieved party to suspend the performance of his obligations if it becomes apparent that the other party will not perform a substantial part of his obligations after the conclusion of the contract. The aggrieved party must give notice of the suspension to the other party and if he provides adequate assurance of his performance, the party must continue with performance. Article 72 authorizes the aggrieved party to avoid the contract to the date of performance when it is clear that the other party will commit a fundamental breach. The aggrieved party is also required to give the other party notice of his intent to avoid the contract if time allows. The requirements for avoidance under Article 72 are more stringent than those for suspension under Article 71. Article 72 requires reasonable prior notice only if time allows, while article 71 requires immediate notice with no exceptions.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.187-211
• /
• 2016

This study discusses the right of suspension of performance against anticipatory breach under SGA. Anticipatory breach originated in Hochster v De La Tour allows the innocent party to exercise immediately the right or rights reserved for the non-performance of obligations. But it has not been codified in English Law. Instead, under SGA s. 41 and s. 44, the seller may suspend his performance against the buyer' anticipatory breach. Lien under s. 41 and stoppage in transit under s. 44 are given only to the seller in a narrowly-defined situation. Under SGA s. 41, the unpaid seller is entitled to retain possession of goods where the buyer becomes insolvent. But under SGA s. 43, the unpaid seller loses the right of lien when he delivers goods to a carrier or other bailee or custodian for the purpose of transmission to the buyer without reserving the right of disposal, or when the buyer or his agent lawfully obtains possession of the goods, or by waiver of lien. Under SGA s. 44, the unpaid seller may exercise the right of stoppage in transit if the buyer becomes insolvent, despite the fact that the property of goods has passed or a bill of lading has been transferred to the buyer. But, under s. 45, the right of stoppage in transit is ended when the buyer or his agent takes delivery of goods. And where the buyer transfers a bill of lading to a sub-buyer, the unpaid seller loses his right to stop goods in transit.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.8
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The buyer's right to withhold performance is a useful and important self-help remedy to protect himself from the seller's breach of contract, and it is also the coercive means to induce the seller to perform his part of contract. However, the buyer's exercise of such a right often exposes himself to the risk of breaching the contract. This is generally due to his ignorance when he is entitled to the right and also uncertainties inherent in the law. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine what the requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right for the seller's actual breach of contract. Design/methodology - In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance under the CISG and the CESL. It mainly focuses on performance due, the seller's non-performance, the buyer's readiness to perform and the requirement of notice. Findings - The main findings of this comparative study can be summarized as follows: Although the CISG has no expressive provision for the buyer's general right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance, it may be inferred from the general principles the CISG underlies, synallagmatic nature of the contract. In addition, it can be drawn by analogy from relevant provisions of the CISG. On the other hand, the CESL expressively provides that the buyer has a general right to withhold performance where the seller fails to tender performance or perform the contract. Therefore, it seems that the position of CESL is rather easier and more apparent to allow the buyer to withhold performance for the seller's non-performance. Originality/value - Most of the existing studies on the right to withhold performance under the CISG have centered on the right to withhold performance for an anticipatory breach of contract. On the other hand, there have been few prior studies on the right to withhold performance for the actual nonperformance during a contractual period of performance. Therefore, this paper examined the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance under the CISG and the CESL in a comparative way for the seller's actual breach of obligation. In this conclusion, it may provide practical and legal considerations and implications for business people who are not certain about the right to withhold performance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2) which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.23
• /
• pp.155-219
• /
• 2004

This paper focuses on two recent legislative developments in electronic commerce: the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" ("UCITA") of USA and the "preliminary draft convention on the use of data message in [international trade] [the context of international contracts]" ("preliminary draft Convention") of UNCITRAL. UCITA provides rules contracts for computer information transactions. UCITA supplies modified contract formation rules adapted to permit and to facilitate electronic contracting. UCITA also adjusts commonly recognized warranties as appropriate for computer information transactions; for example, to recognize the international context in connection with protection against infringement and misappropriation, and First Amendment considerations involved with informational content. Furthermore, UCITA adapts traditional rules as to what is acceptable performance to the context of computer information transactions, including providing rules for the protection of the parties concerning the electronic regulation of performance to clarify that the appropriate general rule is one of material breach with respect to cancellation (rather than so-called perfect tender). UCITA also supplies guidance in the case of certain specialized types of contracts, e.g., access contracts and for termination of contracts. While for the most part carrying over the familiar rules of Article 2 concerning breach when appropriate in the context of the tangible medium on which the information is fixed, but also adapting common law rules and rules from Article 2 on waiver, cure, assurance and anticipatory breach to the context of computer information transactions, UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, UCITA contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context. The UNCITRAL's preliminary draft Convention applies to the use of data messages in connection with an existing or contemplated contract between parties whose places of business are in different States. Nothing in the Convention affects the application of any rule of law that may require the parties to disclose their identities, places of business or other information, or relieves a party from the legal consequences of making inaccurate or false statements in that regard. Likewise, nothing in the Convention requires a contract or any other communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract to be made or evidenced in any particular form. Under the Convention, a communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, is conveyed by means of data messages. Also, the Convention provides for use of automated information systems for contract formation: a contract formed by the interaction of an automated information system and a person, or by the interaction of automated information systems, shall not be denied on the sole ground that no person reviewed each of the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. Further, the Convention provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a contract concluded by a person that accesses an automated information system of another party has no legal effect and is not enforceable if the person made an error in a data message and (a) the automated information system did not provide the person with an opportunity to prevent or correct the error; (b) the person notifies the other party of the error as soon as practicable when the person making the error learns of it and indicates that he or she made an error in the data message; (c) The person takes reasonable steps, including steps that conform to the other party's instructions, to return the goods or services received, if any, as a result of the error or, if instructed to do so, to destroy such goods or services.