• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• 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 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.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제40권
• /
• 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
• /
• 제66권
• /
• 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
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2015

A party who relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from the breach. Appropriate measures are those aimed at lessing the loss as far as reasonably possible. Such measures will typically be a resale of the goods by the seller or a cover purchase by the buyer. The measures the injured party is expected to take in order to mitigate the loss must be reasonable in the circumstances. Article 77 will be applied to the difference between the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated under Article 77. A reduction of damages is the only remedy available to the party in breach in cases covered by Article 77. If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. If goods dispatched to the buyer have been placed at his disposal at their destination and he exercises the right to reject them, he must take possession of them on behalf of the seller. Article 86(1) requires that the buyer manifest his intention at the moment of receipt of the goods. Article 86(2) envisages that the goods have been dispatched to the buyer and that they have been placed at his disposal at their destination. Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person. It is not necessary that the warehouse by public, or that it be a general warehouse for storage. A party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with articles 86 may sell them by any appropriate means taking possession of the goods or in taking them back or in paying the price or the cost of preservation. If the goods are subject to rapid deterioration or their preservation world involve unreasonable expense, a party who is bound to preserve the goods must take reasonable measures to sell them. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2 )which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods. According to Article 88(2), the party who wishes to sell must give notice to the other party of such intention, to the extent possible.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• 제32권3호
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The CISG does not stipulate the subject of the burden of proof, and in the arbitral award, the buyer is liable for proof compared to the seller for nonconformity of the product. Without a unified interpretation of the burden of proof of non-contractual goods, confusion of uncertainty may increase if the parties to the sale contract have a dispute due to the trade in goods. It is an important issue to create a unified regulation on this because the courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of the CISG interpret and apply the "seller's obligation to conform to the goods contract" stipulated in this Convention in various ways. In this study, in the case of international Sales of Goods there is a tendency to prefer arbitration through arbitration agencies in the dispute, so the subject of burden of proof is analyzed through arbitration cases applied by CISG as the governing law. Most international commodity trading around the world is regulated by this Convention, but according to the rigid convention regulations, it is analyzed and interpreted through cases where this convention is applied to each country's international arbitration, suggesting the need for a rigid CISG revision.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.11-51
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the problems and the suggestions of proper ideas for solving them which are arisen from appling CIF, Incoterms 1990 into the contract of sale after reviewing of the contents of traditional CIF contract and the main changes of CIF, Incoterms 1990. This study summerized as follows: First, when the seller provide the buyer with non-negotiable sea waybill or inland waterway document instead of negotiable bill of lading, it is my feeling that the essence of symbolic delivery in traditional CIF contract is fading. And if the buyer has paid for the goods in advance, or a bank wishes to use the goods as security for a loan extended to the buyer, it is not sufficient that the buyer or the bank be named as consignee in a non-negotiable document. This is true because the seller by new instractions to the carrier could replace the named consignee with someone else. To protect the buyer or the bank it is therefore necessary that the original instructions from the seller to the carrier to deliver the goods to the named consignee be irrevocable. Second, CIF term can only be used for sea and inland waterway transport. When the ship's rail serves no practical purposes such as in the case of roll-on/roll-off or container traffic, CIP term instead of CIF term is more appropriate to use. Third, the EDI method still contains many legal and technical problems to be solved in order to be used thoroughly' in the international sale of goods. Therefore, the parties wishing to replace the traditional paper-based trade documents by electronic messages must exchange the agreement on EDI each other in order to prevent and sol ye unexpected problems. Forth, it may be that the goods are to be carried in bulk without such marking or naming of consignee as would amount to appropriation. Then the risk will not pass until effective appropriation has been made. Therefore, the seller needs to appropriate by issuing of separate bills of lading or delivery orders for parts of the bulk cargo. And in case the goods are bought while they are carried at sea, some problems on the passing of risk would arise. One possibility is that the buyer might have to assume risks which have already occured at the time when the contract of sale is entered into force. The other possibility would be to let the pissing of the risk concide with the time when the contract of sale is concluded. The parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law and any solution which might follow there form. Finally, Incoterms are restricted to deal with the main principles for the division of functions, costs and risks between the parties and the rest is left to their individual contract as supplemented by the custom of the trade, the individual terms of the contract of sale and the applicable law. Thus, the parties are advised to ascertain the applicable law on their individual contract of sale in order to solve the problems on the transfer of property, the remedy and so on.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.133-158
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study is to analyze one of CIETEC(China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission) Award on the dispute arising from Cotton Sale Contact which deals with damages and reduction of the price. Especially this case focused on the effect of reduction of the price to damages. The purpose of damages is to place the aggrieved party in as good a position as if the other party had properly performed the contract. So court costs and attorney's fee should be regarded as the loss, because these are caused by consequence of the breach which is recoverable. With the same reason, overpaid taxes should also regard as the loss. It is not impossible, however, to claim both damages and reduction of the price for same loss at the same time. It means buyer could not claim damages for the same loss, once he already claimed reduction of the price. So Korean companies should consider which remedy is proper to himself under the circumstances. He should choose reduction of the price when market price is down. In case of rising market price, he should consider follows: first, it is better to choose damages based on current price(Art.76), if upswing of non-conformity price is higher then upswing of market price. Second, it is better to choose general rule for measuring damages(Art.74), if upswing of market price is higher then upswing of non-conformity price.