• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제19권
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2003

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's remedies where the seller delivers defective goods of four legal systems; Directive, CISG, English law and Korean law. In light of threefold main purposes of this study, it firstly attempts to describe and analyze the remedy provisions of Directive in a comparative way in order to provide legal advice to the sellers who plans to enter into English consumer markets. It shows that the two tier remedial system under Directive is not much different from the other jurisdictions, except where the right of rescission under Directive is absolute in a sense that it does not require a certain degree of seriousness of defect. Secondly, the study compares the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and evaluates the rules in light of the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It proves the followings; (1) the reluctance and uncertainty in English law of ordering specific performance based on the discretionary power does not reflect the parties' preference because the order is either uncertain or rather negative where the purchase of substitute goods elsewhere is not a satisfactory solution in many cases; (2) the position in Korean law which has no limitation on the right to require substitute goods is likely unfair in commercial sales, but justified in consumer sales; (3) the right of termination or reduction under Directive which is subject to the applicability of the right to require repair or substitute goods seems to be contrary to the consumer's preference where the defective delivery destroys the basis of trust in the quality of the seller's performance; (4) the absolute right of termination under Directive and English law seems crucial in consumer sales because they are often inferior to commercial sellers in terms of information and bargaining power; (5) the right of reduction as a self-help remedy which is absent in English law emphasizes its usefulness. Thirdly, it finds that, where CISG is deemed to fail to unify different rules on the right to require specific performance between Civil and Common law, it is attempted once again in Directive and notwithstanding their hostility to awarding the right to require specific performance in English law, Regulations 2002 expressively stipulates such right.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.155-181
• /
• 2012

This study considered as precautions in light of practical affairs related to a claim for damages focusing on CISG (1980) and PICC (2004). Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. First, when exercising a claim for damages, proving the damages may be difficult and hard. Thus, there is necessity for stating the liquidated damages clause in contract given conclusion of contract. Second, as for the application of interest rate given a claim for interest, CISG is not covered interest rate. PICC is covered interest rate. However, there is possibility that PICC will not be applied as general principles. Thus, to remove this insecurity and uncertainty, there is necessity for stating this in contract by deciding on the detailed standard stipulation after fully discussing about interest payment with the counterpart given sale contract. Third, when a seller delivered non-conformity of the goods for contract, a buyer is desirable to exercise by discreetly judging the exercise method or limitation element on a problem of selecting and exercising remedy favorable to oneself out of a claim for damages and a right to reduce the price. Finally, There was suggestion that the contract parties are desirable to utilize by modifying and supplementing properly this in line with own business-based necessity and situation based on the ICC Model International Sale Contract, and to state CISG and PICC the governing law clause, in preparing contract. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in which the damaged party exercises a claim for damages or aims to cope with the counterpart's exercising a claim for damages.