• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.291-319
• /
• 2004

The seller may take a warranty with respect to the goods. If they are not as warranted, they may be held liable for the breach of warranty. Even when they has not made a warranty, the law will in some instances hold them responsible as though they had made a warranty. An express warranty is a part the basis for the sale. That is, the buyer has purchased the goods on the reasonable assumption that they were as stated by the seller. When the buyer intends to use the goods for a particular or usual purpose, as contrasted with the ordinary use for which they are customarily sold, the seller makes an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for the purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and when the seller at the time of contracting knows or has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and his reliance on the seller's judgment. A merchant seller who makes a sale of goods in which he customarily deals makes an implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code expressly abolishes the requirement a privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be brought against the seller by members of the buyer's family, his household, and his guests, with respect to personal injury sustained by them. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement. At common law the rule was that only the parties to a transaction had my rights relating to it. Accordingly, the buyer could sue his immediate seller for breach of warranties. The rule was stated in the terms that there could be no suit for breach of warranty unless there was a privies of contract. The code expressly abolishes the requirement of privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be bought against the seller by members of the buyer. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, 1 want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• Proceedings of the Korea Port Economic Association Conference
• /
• 2003.07a
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.133-146
• /
• 2020

In the UK's the insurance law 2015, a remedy for breach of warranty in marine insurance was introduced. Also, if the insured proves that breach of warranty in marine insurance does not affect damages, the insurer pays the insurance money to the insured. The UK's marine insurance law has served as the governing law that has been the standard for the marine insurance industry for a long time. Korea and China were heavily influenced by the UK maritime insurance law. Therefore, this study analyzed the cases of breach of warranty in marine insurance in Korea and China. Through this, the insurer avoid the insurance contract for an accident that occurred after the breach of warranty. this result will be different under the new revised insurance law system. With the revision to The Insurance Act 2015, one of the biggest change in the insurance system is that it is possible to remedy of the violations of warranty. However, such a revision of the law requires considerable attention as it also changes the interpretation and judgment of the courts. Accordingly, a practical response of the insurance industry is required. It is necessary to prepare for possible disputes in practice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was developed and clarified in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance, and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.111-180
• /
• 2009

According to English law, in a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure to be insured. However, Unites States law affords the implied warranty of seaworthiness a great deal of latitude. In the case of voyage policies, it has been traditionally held that the assured is bound not only to have his vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage but also to keep her so, insofar as this can be achieved by himself and his agents, throughout the voyage. Additionally, a defect in seaworthiness, arising after the commencement of the risk, and permitted to continue from bad faith or want of ordinary prudence or diligence on the part of the insured or his agents, discharges the insurer from liability for any loss consequent to such bad faith, or want of prudence or diligence; but does not affect the insurance contract in reference to any other risk or loss covered by the policy, and which is not caused or exacerbated by the aforementioned defect. One of the most important areas of difference in the marine insurance contract between the U.K. and U.S. is the breach of warranty. Prior to the Wilburn Boat case, the MIA was thought to hold that the effect of a breach of warranty was similar under American law -in that under the general maritime law literal compliance with all promissory warranties is required. In this case, the Court concluded that state law should apply to a marine insurance policy, and found that there was no federal rule addressing the consequences of a breach of warranty in marine polices. However, it is of the utmost importance that this case brought to a close the imperative concordance between English and American law. Meanwhile, in relation to marine insurance contracts in Korea, this insurance is subject to English law and practice;, additionally, the international trade volume between Korea and the United States has assumed a vast scale. Therefore, we believe it is important to understand the differences in marine insurance law between the two countries in terms of marine insurance contracts, and most specifically warranties.