• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.83-94
• /
• 2019

Article 17 of the Marine Insurance Act (MIA) states that "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party." In the Carter v. Boehm case, Lord Mansfield was the first to provide a comprehensive description of the duty of utmost good faith, which is analyzed here. This judgement not only laid the foundation for the Modern English Insurance Act, but it also influenced the draft of the English Insurance Act of 2015, which aimed at correcting distortions that occurred during the application of statue law and common law thereafter. The duty of utmost good faith, applied between Lord Mansfield's insured and insurer presents the context of information asymmetry of the insured and insurer entering contracts. In the absence of information asymmetry, in contrast to the effects of being in both sides of the duty of utmost good faith, alleviating the duty of disclosure of the insured, and it is also clear that the warning of the severity of the retrospective avoidance of the breach of duty of disclosure and the need for its limited application have already been pointed out. Furthermore, considering the principle of retrospective avoidance, the duty of utmost good faith should be understood as a concept limited to the duty of disclosure before a contract is concluded

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

The remedies available to a seller that has suffered a breach of contract by the buyer are addressed in Section III of Chapter III of Part III. The first provision in the section, 61, catalogues those remedies and authorizes an aggrieved seller to resort to them. The remaining provisions of the section address particular remedies or prerequisites to remedies. The subject matter of the current section remedies for breach of contract by the buyer obviously parallels that of Section III of Chapter II of Part III remedies for breach of contract by the seller. Many individual provisions within these sections form matched pairs. Thus 61, which catalogs the seller's remedies, which catalogs the buyer's remedies. Other provisions in the current section that have analogues in the section on buyer's remedies include 62, seller's right to require buyer's performance 63, seller's right to fix an additional period for buyer to perform and 64, seller right to avoid the contract. As was the case with the provisions on buyers' remedies, the articles governing sellers' remedies operate in conjunction with a variety of provisions outside the current section. Thus the seller's right to require performance by the buyer is subject to the rule in 28 relieving a court from the obligation to order specific performance in circumstances in which it would not do so under its own law. The authorization in 61 for a seller to claim damages for a buyer's breach operates in connection with 74-76, which specify how damages are to be measured. 49, stating when an aggrieved seller can avoid the contract, is part of a network of provisions that address avoidance, including the definition of fundamental breach, the requirement of notice of avoidance, provisions governing avoidance in certain special circumstances, measures of damages available only if the contract has been avoided and the provisions of Section V of Part III, Chapter V on effects of avoidance.

• 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.61
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

The parties in International Sale of Goods including Korean Firms Should note ; The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and CISG. The obligations mentioned in Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. 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. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. International sales contracts frequently prescribe that the buyer has to act in advance, that is before the seller starts the process of delivery. Such acts may be either advance payments or the procurement of securities for payment as letters of credit guarantees. On the other hand, The seller deliver the goods hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and CISG. The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgement. The buyer may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. The seller may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the buyer to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• 2006.11a
• /
• pp.268-270
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this paper was to explore delay avoiding measures and strategies. The paper was based on previous work of authors on finding delay causes. Firstly, the paper has discussed about delay avoidance measures prescribed by the previous work. As the previous study identified five main causes of construction delays, various measures and strategies to overcome those delay problems have been discussed in sequence in the last sections. Major delay prevention strategies are: involving stakeholders in the project decisions, outreach program, realistic time and resource estimation, try to adjust the triple constraints of time, cost and scope, ensure fair and complete disclosure of information at an early stage of the construction project, contractor, itself should inquire about patent design errors prior to submitting its bid, owner should include in its contract with the consultant an indemnity (protection) clause etc.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems in exercising buyer's right to claim damages for the breach of contract by the seller in international sales contract and to suggest reasonable counter-measures. The main contents are as follows: First, this author analyzed the principles of the seller's liability for damages in detail and examined the methods for the calculation of damages on the basis of Arts.74~77. As these articles are found to be insufficient in practical application, this author further examined the UNIDROIT Principles(2004) to confirm whether these Principles can fill the gaps of CISG or not, which turned out their gap-filling functions. Second, this author tried to find any expected problems when the buyer resorts to the right to claim damages in case of the seller's breach of contract including the estimation of damages, the burden of proof, causation, the proof of appropriateness for avoidance, the proof of buyer's obligation to mitigate the loss and so on. The reason is that these problems may cause a lot of difficulties in real business. As result, many buyers have given up their reasonable rights to claim damages so far. Finally, from the buyer's perspective, this author would like to suggest a liquidated damage clause(LD Clause) which gives the buyer to received a specified sum in case of seller's non-performance and/or a demand guarantee(or standby L/C) which guarantees buyer to secure unconditional payment independent of the underlying contract. For these purposes, the buyer should try to insert the LD Clause and/or Guarantee Clause in the contract when the buyer and the seller negotiate the sales contract. Also there are a lot of considerations and limitations in using the LD Clause and the Guarantee Clause in their real business, mainly dependent up bargain power between the seller and the buyer, for which this author promise to examine in detail in the future.