• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제35권
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2007

As we know, D-terms which are constituted with DAF delivered the goods in a border place, DES delivered the goods on board a vessel at a vessel specified port on the buyer's side, DEQ delivered the goods on the quay on the buyer's side as the specified place, DDU and DDP delivered the good at the stipulated place at the agreed place or point, mean arrival contracts. DAF is designed mainly for railway carriage, DES and DEQ are designed mainly for vessel shipment, DDU and DDP are designed mainly for multimodal transportation. In spite of their original purpose of revision. They have in themselves many problems on notable points on application in practice. Therefore, in order to magnify their use, through revision of Incoterms, DAF is restricted to railway carriage, DES and DEQ are restricted to be used only for charter shipments. Particularly transport documents which seller should supply the buyer with under DDU and DDP are documents for ownership and possession rights to the goods loaded when executed in negotiable form like as CIF.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2011

International transactions have the threat of non-payment by the buyer or non-performance by the seller. Parties tend to search for additional means of securing performance and payment beyond the mere agreement in the contract. Such security may be achieved by means of a letter of credit. When contracting parties have agreed to pay by means of a letter of credit, the buyer's bank takes upon itself the obligation to pay the purchase price when the seller tenders the documents that are stipulated in the letter of credit. The documents must comply strictly with the terms of the credit.. The documents play a crucial role in letter of credit transaction. The principles of abstraction, separability and strict compliance governing the letter of credit transaction are considered. The concept of fundamental breach of Article 25 CISG was discussed. This article examines whether a failure to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the letter of credit can constitute a fundamental breach of the sales contract as defined by Article 25 of the CISG by the seller and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract. For letter of credit transactions it should be accepted that the delivery of non-performing documents constitutes a fundamental breach, if the result of this breach is that the bank refuses to pay the price for the goods. On the other hand, in the interpretation of Article 25 CISG, it should be noted that if the parties have agreed to payment by means of a letter of credit, they have simultaneously agreed to apply the strict compliance principle to the delivery of documents in the sales contract. Finally the parties should ensure that inconsistency between the requirements under the documentary credit and the requirements under the contract of sale is avoided, since the buyer may be in breach of his payment obligation if the seller cannot get paid under the documentary credit when his documents conform with the contract of sale.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

Seller's obligation on the Delivery of Goods and Handing over the Documents are key elements in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) has been entered into force on 1 January 1988 to create international certainty and uniformity in the law and to govern issues that arise in an international sale of goods transaction. The Incoterms were first published by the ICC in 1936 and were most recently revised in 2010. Incoterms 2010 are entering into force on 1 January 2011. The Incoterms focus on the seller's delivery obligations and reflect the principle that the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods. This study highlights basic rules covering seller's obligation of delivery of goods and handing over the documents under the Incoterms 2010 and the United Nations Convention and Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In the second chapter, this study will provide analyses and compare these two legal systems in relation to the basic rules governing delivery of goods and passing of risks in contract of sale. This chapter evaluates the meaning of Article 31 and Article 67(1) and FOB, CFR, CIF & FCA, CPT, CIP terms of Incoterms 2010. Chapter Three will focus on handing over the documents. Article 30 CISG imposes the seller's primary obligations to deliver the goods and to hand over documents relating to them. Article 34 CISG supplements the seller's obligation in relation to documents by providing that the seller must hand over documents relating to the goods. In contrast, Article 58(1) CISG imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay only when it has received the goods or documents controlling their disposition. I reviewed only some of the documents relating to the goods are documents controlling their disposition. This chapter considers the meaning of the phrase "documents that control the disposition of the goods and do not control disposition of the goods." Finally, the fourth chapter will assess the meaning of rules of CISG and Incoterms 2010.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권8호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• 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.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.199-224
• /
• 2013

본고의 연구범위로서 '국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약'(CISG) 제3편 제3장 제1절은 총 7개의 조문으로 구성되어 있다. 본고의 연구결과로서 개별조항의 법적 기준에 관한 요지와 그 시사점 내지 유의점은 다음과 같다. 제53조는 본절의 개요임과 동시에 매수인의 주된 의무를 일괄하여 다루고 있는 규정이다. 본조는 CISG가 물품매매의 요건을 언급하고 있지 않음을 고려하여 제30조와 연계하여 다루어야 한다. 제54조는 계약이나 또는 적용법규에 따라 물품대금지급을 위한 매수인의 준비조치를 다루고 있는 규정으로서 본조의 의무를 위반할 경우 매도인은 제61조에 따라 구제수단을 행사할 수 있다. 다만 이러한 절차는 제71조 (1)에서 규정하고 있는 이행준비 또는 계약의 이행을 위한 행위가 아님을 유의하여야 한다. 제55조는 적용함에 있어서는 반드시 양당사자의 의사가 고려되어야 한다. 계약당사자가 물품가격을 결정하고 있는 경우 제7조의 적용순위에 따라 일반원칙 내지 국제사법이 적용될 수 있음을 유의하여야 한다. 제56조는 당사자가 물품중량의 기준을 합의해 두고 있지 않다면 포장중량을 제외한 물품의 순중량으로 물품대금을 결정하도록 규정하고 있다. 본조는 당사자 의사나 관행 또는 관습이 없는 경우에 적용되는 일반원칙이다. 제57조에 의거 당사자가 달리 합의한 바가 없다면 물품대금은 매도인의 영업소에서, 당사자가 물품의 인도 또는 서류의 교부 시에 대금을 지급하기로 합의한 경우 물품 또는 서류가 인도되는 장소에서 대금이 지급되어야 한다. 계약체결 후 영업소의 변경과 관련하여 발생한 물품대금지급에 관한 추가비용은 매도인이 부담하여야 한다. 제58조는 그 어떠한 특정한 시기에 물품대금을 지급하여야 할 의무가 없는 경우 매수인의 대금지급의 시기를 규정하고 있는 조문으로서 이 경우 본조는 제78조에 언급된 이자의 누적의 시기의 기산시점이 된다. 제59조에 따라 매수인은 그 어떠한 조건에도 구애됨이 없이 예정대로 물품대금을 지급하여야 한다. 당해 의무를 위반할 경우 매도인은 모든 구제권을 행사할 수 있다. 당해 시점 이후로 연체된 금액의 이자가 적용된다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제46권
• /
• pp.105-130
• /
• 2010

CISG provides the place of payment at the Article 57 which if the buyer is not bound to pay the price at any other particular place, he must pay it to the seller (a) at the seller's p lace of business or (b) if the payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, at the place where the handing over takes place. When the parties have agreed that payment is to be made against the handing over of the goods or of documents, the place where this is to happen according to the contract or CISG is the place of payment. When the parties have not agreed to this, the place of payment is the seller's place of payment. The buyer does not send the money to seller's office, but pays it to the seller's bank account. Where payment is effected by a L/C, such operations shall be governed by UCP and collection of money governed by URC. The payment at the seller's place of payment affects the rate of interest, currency of money and jurisdiction which is interpreted by Brussel convention and Lugano convention. The principle on which the CISG is based, characterizes the obligation of payment as an obligation to be performed at the creditor's place of business. This principle affects the place of damage claims payable to be at the creditor's that place. Payment at the place of business is required, but not inside the place itself.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.