• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.127-145
• /
• 2014

The wording of Article 18 shows that a statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer is an acceptance. Meanwhile, Article 19 states that this reply with different terms is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counteroffer. For example, additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party's liability to the other, or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially. However, this reply with different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance unless the offer or, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. As a result, the acceptance depends on whether different terms are material or not. CIETEC holds that the deletion of contract violation liability clause is not equal to an alteration to the extent of one party's liability to the other as stipulated in Article 19(3) of the CISG. In addition, CIETAC recognizes that one party had orally accepted the modifications made to the sales confirmation, with even China declaring against an oral contract. Lastly, CIETAC holds that the sales confirmation has been established when both parties signed on the sales confirmation instead of the acceptance being effective. Korean companies should, thus, note these issues when they solve disputes at CIETAC.