• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

본고는 국제물품매매계약에 있어 매수인의 계약위반에 따라 피해를 입은 매도인의 구제수단을 다루고 있는 CISG 제3편 제3장 제3절(제61조 내지 제65조)을 중심으로 매도인의 구제권 일반과 이행청구권, 이행을 위한 추가기간의 지정, 계약해제권 및 물품명세의 확정권에 관한 규정내용을 연구범위로 두고, 당해 조문해석과 적용에 따른 평가에 기하여, 법적 시사점과 유의점을 도출한 논문이다. 그 내용은 우선, 제61조는 매수인의 계약위반에 기한 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 구제수단을 규정하고 있고, 나머지 조항에서는 특별구제 또는 구제의 전제조건을 규정하고 있다. 본조는 매수인의 계약위반에 관하여 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 일반적인 구제방법을 다루고 있다. 본조에서 매도인은 제62조 내지 제65조에 규정된 권리를 행사할 수 있다고 규정하고는 있으나, 이는 독립적으로 그 조항들에게 법적 효력을 부여하고 있는 규정이라고는 볼 수 없다. 제62조는 매수인의 의무이행을 청구하는 권리에 대한 제한을 두고 있는데, 그 내용은 매도인이 이미 자신의 의무의 이행을 청구하는 권리와 양립되지 않는 어느 구제방법을 채택한 경우와, 매도인이 매수인에게 의무이행을 청구할 권리가 있다고 규정하고 있음에도 불구하고, 국내법에 의해 특정이행을 주문하지 않는 상황에서 매도인을 대신하여 매수인에게 특정이행을 청구할 필요가 없는 경우로 대별된다. 제63조는 매도인은 매수인으로 하여금 그 의무를 이행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 추가기간을 지정할 수 있음을 규정하고 있고, 제64조는 매수인이 하나 또는 그 이상의 의무를 위반하는 경우와 중대한 계약위반에 기하여 매도인이 계약을 해제할 수 있는 상황을 다루고 있다. 아울러, 제65조는 매수인이 합의한 기간 내에 또는 매도인으로부터 요구를 받은 후 상당한 기간 내에 합의된 특징을 확정하지 않는 경우 발생될 수 있는 문제를 다루고 있다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제12권4호
• /
• pp.385-404
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this article is to examine the Delays of Performance under UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In theory, there exist three clearly distinguishable categories of breach of contract, namely non-performance, non-conforming performance and late performance. In particular, delays of performance are the most common breach of sales contract including late delivery, late payment or late performance of any other obligation. In this regard, this article examines how parties can, through careful drafting, avoid or minimize legal problems in case of delay in performance. Especially, the export perspective focuses on the seller's interests, which require that sanctions be as lenient as possible if the seller has breached the contract but that there are prompt and adequate sanctions if the buyer has breached the contract. Furthermore, the seller should ensure that a short or medium delay in delivery will not entitle the buyer to declare the contract immediately avoided and take precautions against late payment, including delayed opening of a letter of credit.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제41권
• /
• pp.103-132
• /
• 2009

In international sales of goods, the buyer must pay the price for the goods as required by the contract and CISG, The buyer's this obligation includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract, which includes providing the seller with relevant letter of credit through the issuing bank. Where the parties have not stipulated the time limit within which the credit should be opened, but there is an agreed date or period for shipment, the time limit for the L/C opening should be calculated back from the agreed date of shipment or the first date of shipment, while, in addition, the buyer should open the L/C sufficiently earlier than the shipment date in order for the seller to be able to know the L/C's opening before beginning to ship the goods. The L/C provided the buyer should conform to the contract of sale. Therefore, for example, when an unconfirmed L/C is provided violating the agreement or the L/C opened states that, under a FOB contract, a "freght prepaid" bill of lading shall be presented as a required document of the L/C, the buyer has failed to perform his obligation. If the buyer fails to perform his obligations to provide the letter of credit, the seller may require the buyer to perform that obligation; may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance of the obligation; or, the seller may declare the contract avoided, if the failure amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or if the buyer does not, within the additional period of time fixed by the seller, perform the obligation; and the seller claim damages. However, when a relevant L/C has been issued for the seller, as a rule, he cannot ask directly for the buyer to pay the price before avail himself of the L/C first.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권3호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

무역계약의 이행기일은 매도인의 물품인도 기일과 매수인의 대금지급 기일이다. 신용장거래에서 무역계약의 이행기일은 신용장에서 명시된 선적기일과 서류매입기일로 본다. 매도인은 매수인으로부터 신용장을 받고나서 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하여야 하며 이 기간이 경과하면 매도인은 신용장을 거절할 수 없다. 그러나 매수인의 귀책 사유로 인하여 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하지 못하는 경우에는 신용장에 명시된 선적기일까지 연장된다. 매도인이 신용장 변경을 요청한 경우에 매수인은 반드시 이를 수락하여 매도인이 원하는 신용장을 변경하여 매도인에게 개설하여야 한다. 매수인이 매도인의 신용장 변경 요청을 거절하면 A사는 B사가 요청한 대로 신용장 내용을 변경하여 다시 개설할 의무가 있고 A사가 단순히 신용장의 변경을 지체한 것이 아니라 B사의 신용장 요청을 거절한 경우에는 B사가 견적서에 합의하여 기대할 수 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈하는 것으로 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약 제25조가 규정한 본질적인 계약위반에 해당되어 B사는 무역계약을 해제할 수 있고 A사에게 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. A사의 무역계약 위반으로 인한 손해배상액은 이익의 상실을 포함하여 그 위반의 결과 B사가 입은 손실과 동등한 금액으로 하여야 한다.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권3호
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관하여 규정하고 있는 CISG의 제30조와 34조의 내용을 무역관습인 Incoterms 및 신용장통일규칙(UCP)과 관련하여 해석하고, 서류교부의무의 위반이 매수인에게 어떤 법적 구제권을 부여하는지를 규명한다. CISG는 제 30조와 34조에 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관한 규정을 두고 있으나 서류의 종류, 서류교부 시기, 장소, 형식 등에 대해서는 별도로 규율하지 않고 계약 및 관습(usage)에 의존하고 있다. 이에 따라 계약에 명시적인 규정이 없는 경우 Incoterms와 신용장통일규칙이 협약을 보완하여 적용된다. 매도인이 계약에 적합한 서류를 정해진 시기, 장소, 형식에 따라 교부할 의무를 이행하지 않는 경우 협약의 제45조에 의해 이행청구권, 계약해제권 및 손해배상청구권 등의 구제권이 매수인에게 부여된다. 그러나 계약해제권의 경우 협약이 계약의 유지를 기본 정신으로 하고 있으므로 매우 제한적으로 인정되는 경향이 있다.