• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.40
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This article attempts to describe and analyze the rules on the buyer's remedies for lack of conformity under PELS. It shows that such remedies under the PELS operate in a two-tier remedial scheme which is alien to both domestic and international legal systems. That is, repair and replacement take the position of primary remedy, whereas termination, price reduction and damages are secondary remedies which are available only where the primary remedies cannot be invoked. Notwithstanding its superiority, the PELS have some drawbacks in several aspects. First, the PELS seems to place its focus on the factor of cost except the other factors, for instance, the significance of the lack of conformity, when one decides whether the first tier remedies cause the seller unreasonable effort or expense. It is argued that the factors can be considered by referring to art. 1:302 PECL. Second, the PELS does not expressively provide any exclusion of the seller's right to choose between repair or replacement on the basis of unreasonable uncertainty in reimbursing the expenses advanced by the buyer. It argues that if there is such uncertainty, it should be regarded as causing the buyer an unreasonable inconvenience under art. 4:204(1). Third, the PELS does not seem to properly reflect the consumer's interests in that most consumers prefer to have the absolute right of termination as against the commercial sellers who have a relatively stronger bargaining position. The reasons for that is that there is a big hurdle, i.e., a hierarchy of remedies, to be overcome by the consumer to battle with the commercial seller, and that unavoidable vagueness in defining a minor lack of conformity has been often used against the consumer, but in favour of the commercial seller with a strong bargaining position.

• 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).

• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

This study analyzes the buyer's remedies for defects in title under DCFR, and it is compared with those of CISG. DCFR adopts a unitary concept of 'non-performance' which is any failure and includes delayed performance and any other performance which is not conformed with the contract. In terms of defects in title, any remedies for non-performance are available under DCFR. Thus. under DCFR, the buyer is entitled to enforce specific performance of obligations, to withhold performance, to terminate for fundamental non-performance, to reduce price, to damage for loss, to require repair, or to deliver a replacement. But under CISG, whether or not defects in title constitute 'non-conformity' is not clear and the majority understands 'non-conformity' does not include title defects. Therefore, the buyer may not has rights to require repair and delivery of replacement unlike DCFR.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of LD Clause against the seller's breach of contract in connection with delivering the goods in the international sales contract, and international guarantee system using standby L/C or demand guarantee. For this purpose, the author, first, considered the outline of the buyer's remedies in cases that the seller had not performed his obligations in contract and the difficulties in the buyer's remedies. As alternatives for overcoming the difficulties, this author recommended the LD Clauses (Liquidated Damage Clauses) based on ICC Model International Sales Contract, and explained each Model Clause. To enhance the feasibility of LD Clause, this author suggested the guarantee system, like the standby L/C or demand guarantee. But these guarantee systems have several limitations in practical use. Thus, these guarantee systems would greatly contribute to Korean exportation in the future. The reason is that the Korean export structure would be more complex and the period of sales contract would be longer and longer, which result to in long-terms supply contracts. These changes would require the guarantee much urgently.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• 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.