• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.21 no.9
• /
• pp.115-121
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to deal with disputes between the seller and the buyer in connection with the Letter of Credit (LC) in a sales contract. The Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides the rules on the fundamental breaches which can lead to termination of the sales contract but the CISG is not enough to govern issues arising from the LC disputes when the sales contract is not clear about the payment terms. This paper tried to find some solutions to the disputes by considering international rules, such as the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL). Research design, data and methodology: The methodology applied in this study was an analysis of some court decisions and extended literature review. Results: The study revealed that in contracts for the sale of international goods, the buyer was obliged to open an LC as manner of payment. If the buyer failed to open an LC or amend the terms of the LC, the seller could avoid the contract because this could deprive the seller's expected interest. Conclusions: Few studies in Korea have been comprehensively analyzed in terms of the obligations of regarding the LC with respect to the CISG in court cases. This study suggests safeguarding the buyer and seller when the LC is considered absolute or conditional.

• 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.42
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2009

On April 11, 1980, the "United Nations on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" ("CISG") was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and approved by a diplomatic conference in Vienna providing uniform law for international sales of goods. It took effect as of March 1, 2005, in Korea. It is set forth on the seller's remedies for breach by the buyer Section III (Art. 61 - 65) under the CISG. In this study, the focus is only on the seller's notice fixing additional final period for performance (Art. 63) and the right to avoid the contract (Art. 64), with examination on some relevant foreign arbitral awards rendered by the ICC and the CIETAC together. Article 63 provides that the seller may fix an additional period of time for reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligation. It was found from the above arbitral awards that the concept of 'reasonable length' should be decided on a case-by-case basis, given the specific circumstances in the case [Art. 63(1)]. It is provided that unless the seller has received a notice that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract in accordance with Article 63(2). Article 64(1) provides the means and grounds for avoidance of the contract, which can be avoided 1) when the breach of the buyer amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or 2) when the additional period of time is fixed by the seller, unless the buyer declares that he will not perform so within the period of fixed time. As we examined in the above arbitral awards, it was held that the contract is avoided when the seller sends the final notice stating that he will avoid the contract, after the expiration of the additional period of time fixed by the seller in the ICC award. On the contrary, it was held that the contract should be deemed to be avoided exactly when the expiration of additional period noted in the avoidance notice is elapsed in the CIETAC award. Article 64(2) sets time limits for avoidance.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

This paper examines the seller's obligation to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the sales contract as set forth in articles 30 and 34 of the CISG. Article 30 obliges the seller to band over documents relating to the goods. This obligation to band over documents is further elaborated in article 34. According to article 34, the documents must be tendered at the time and place, and in the form, required by the contract. If the seller has delivered non-conforming documents before the agreed time, he has the right to remedy the defects if this would not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or expense. However, the buyer can claim any damages suffered despite the seller's remedy. Specific emphasis is placed on the interplay between the CISG and Incoterms. Incoterms contain detailed rules governing the obligations of the seller to provide for documents. Incoterms constitute international trade usage under articles 9(1) and 9(2) CISG and supplement construction of CISG with UCP under L/C transaction. In the event of failure by seller to deliver the necessary documents, the buyer has certain remedies available, such as the right to claim damages, the right to demand specific performance, and the right to repair. Furthermore, the failure to deliver the required documents under contract constitute a fundamental breach of the underlying sales contract as defined by article 25 of the CISG by the seller, and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract entirely article 49. However, it is stressed that since one of the main principles of the CISG is the preservation of the contract, the avoidance of the contract should remain a remedy of last resort.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.