• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

The United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) is legislated for unified of international sale of goods, but does not cover all concerns related to that. Arilce 4 provides the exclusions of CISG. These exclusions might be govern by a domestic law. This paper analyses what are excluding under CISG Article 4, and then provides the Korean and Chinese domestic regulations related to them. At first, whether some issues are excluding based on the interpretation of CISG Article 4 depends on the agreement of parties concerned. An issue that a national law applies even might be invalid if it does not follow the general principles of CISG. In Conclusion, CISG does not cover the validity of the contract and the property in the goods sold under CISG Article 4. a company who trades with Chines company should understand the differences of both countries' regulations about the validity of the contract and the effect of property transfer and be careful to decide a govern law to avoid unnecessary disputes about these issues even though their contract is govern by CISG.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) endeavors to increase international trade through the creation of a uniform law of international sales. The CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business if that which has the closest relationship to the contract and its performance. Despite the importance of a definition for 'place of business,' the CISG does not provide one. Lack of a definition of 'place of business' may cause problems for parties trying to determine whether the CISG applies to their contract. Also Contracting parties can opt out of the CISG. But the CISG does not state whether the parties must expressly exclude the CISG's application to a transaction or whether they might do so by implication. we need to consider how effectively opt out of the CISG. Under U.S. law, the CISG is considered to be a self-executing treaty. So the CISG's provisions apply directly as substantive sales law to contracts for the international sale of goods. Despite the CISG's political and economic significance to U.S., U.S. Courts have overlooked the terms of the CISG. This article considered how to the CISG was recognized, interpreted and applied by the U.S. Courts in related cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.135-157
• /
• 2016

CISG is the most important international convention in the field of international sale of goods. Many arbitration organizations often invoke this convention when settling disputes between the parties concerned. China has been one of the contracting states since the effective date of CISG, and has settled many cases with it. This article aims at analyzing the legal status of CISG in China and the methods with which Chinese arbitration organizations apply CISG. Also, it looks into the existing problems, based on which it provides suggestions for improvement.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.453-479
• /
• 2012

The increase in international trade is clearly reflected by litigation and arbitration. Despite the importance of international commercial transaction, until very recently little was known about how the law interacts with actual practice. The CISG obviously plays an important role, but we are concerned with using choice of law to resolve issue that the CISG leaves unresolved. The case law UPICC is now accessible by means of UNILEX, the database on international case law that focus on CISG cases. The courts and arbitration tribunals throughout the world are developing a growing body of international case law on issues not resolved by the CISG, though arising from transactions to which the CISG applies. The application of the CISG is obligatory due to its nature as hard law an international convention. However, UPICC are only restatements and more flexibility, comprehensive instrument than CISG. This article offers to promote the UPICC application from their present status as a mere soft law instrument through analysing UNILEX cases.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2016

International arbitration is the important field of applying CISG and the backbone of uniform law developed by CISG. Now CIETAC tribunals like courts of contracting states apply CISG precisely, which is beneficial to improving the quality and the credit of arbitral cases. Arbitration has the characters of independence and the non-government. the legal foundation of arbitral tribunal's applying CISG are the national arbitral law, the applicable arbitral procedures and usages of arbitration, not for performing international obligations under the CISG. CIETAC mainly use China Contract Law and CISG over the cases of sale of goods. Because of no provisions on recovery of differential price loss (equal to article 75 and 76 of CISG) Chinese tribunals have more discretion in determining the sum of damages under the China Contract Law. Applying China Contract Law may not beneficial to aggrieved party.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.53-70
• /
• 2019

This study analyzed some cases of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commision (CIETAC) related to the application of the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As a contracting party of the CISG, China has accumulated a considerable amount of experience in applying CISG through commercial arbitrations. This study sought to understand how CISG is operated in commercial arbitration in China. By analyzing actual cases in China, Korean commercial arbitration can avoid mistakes and further improve. This study of Chinese cases will give some useful information for Korean companies. As defined by the CISG, the applicability can be divided into direct application and indirect application. When China joined the CISG, it made a reservation out of Article 1(1)(b). Korea and China are contracting parties to CISG and CISG is, therefore, directly applied. It is beneficial for Korea to understand how CIETAC is indirectly applied in China then. Some of the results of this study are as follows: First, CIETAC made a correct judgment most of the time on the direct application of CISG. However, there were mistakes in the judgment of the nationality of the parties in a few cases. The parties must clearly define applicable laws when entering into a contract. Secondly, the 2012 "CIETAC Arbitration Rules" was revised so that the "party autonomy" was introduced into Chinese commercial arbitration concerning indirect application. Therefore, the principle of autonomy of the parties was not fully recognized in the past judgments. Instead, the domestic law of China was applied in accordance with the reservation of Article 1(1)(b). Thirdly, China did not explain the application of CISG in Hong Kong, which led to ambiguity in concerned countries. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the status of CISG in Hong Kong. In addition, Korean companies should clearly define the applicable laws when dealing with Hong Kong companies.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.203-225
• /
• 2012

This paper investigates the difference of writing requirements between the UCC2. and the UN convention on international sales of goods (CISG). To do it, the U.S writing requirement by statute of frauds was introduced by two sources of laws including common law and UCC${\S}$2-201. Although the U.S. statute of frauds requires some contract to be written with formalities, the way the requirement is satisfied is quite flexible in terms of its formalities. The UCC is more flexible than the common law in its formalities. The CISG does not require the sales contract to be written with any format, which is totally different from the U.S statue of frauds. Such differences between the U.S laws and CISG in writing requirement were investigated in the context of conflicts of laws.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.89-110
• /
• 2014

Since the CISG came into force in 1 January 1988 in China, many cases as well as arbitral awards have been decided under the CISG during the period of about 30 years of its application in China. After the CISG entered into force and before the handovers of HK in 1997, the China courts or CIETAC applied CISG to the disputes between China party and HK party in many cases, even PRC reserved CISG article 95. On the Contrary, after the handovers of HK in 1997, the China courts or CIETAC did not apply CISG to the disputes between them in many cases with the reason that China filed an CISG article 95 declaration and HK is not a contracting unit. The matter is the China's contract law and civil law have convinced that the CISG is highly applicable as "International Practice" under the China law in appropriate circumstances, so sometimes China courts or CIETAC applied CISG based on the China law not CISG itself. As a result, some interpretation made by the China court or CIETAC might not comply with the international character of the CISG and to some extent even impaired the uniform application of the CISG. So the author expects more and more valuable cases to be reported which will be good for its further development.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.15-39
• /
• 2016

Over the past couple of decades, we can see the emergence of a new lex mercatoria. It consists of international conventions or treaty, model laws and international principles. And such new lex mercatoria is driven by the international institutions such as UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and ICC. The international convention and international principles in the field of international commercial transaction are considered : UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) and The UNIDROIT Principles(PICC Principles). The former is the statue law for the latter, and the latter sometimes supports the former as an interpretation and supplementation of CISG. So, the purpose of this article is to evaluate and investigate the current status of CISG and PICC Principles in terms of application and interpretation principles. The results are as follows. First, PICC are used for the interpretation and supplementation of international law such as CISG, but CISG is a law, not a rule. Second, CISG and PICC Principles are not often chosen when parties chose the law governing their contract. The parties very often chose a national law ; the number of the parties choosing CISG and PICC Principles as a governing law was very low.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2013

The amount of international trade conducted through Hong Kong (HK) is increasing, thus rendering the legal framework governing contracts of sale between Mainland China (China) and HK is of particular importance. The status of HK under the CISG is currently unclear, however. First, the CISG entered into force in China in 1988. This important development had no legal effect for HK though as China lacked the power to enter into international conventions for HK. Second, the "Letter of Notification" deposited to the Secretary-General of the UN referred a list of treaties to be applied to HK, taking effect from July 1, 1997. This list, however, made no mention of the CISG. Third, China made a reservation in Article 95 of the CISG. Pursuant to Article 1(1)(b) of the CISG, the CISG cannot apply to HK. As a result, the Chinese Arbitral Tribunal apply the Chinese law according to the closest connection principle with the contract. In this case, attention must be given to the different result to which the CISG is applied. Liability for damages pursuant to the Chinese Contract Law (CCL) is just the same as Article 74 CISG, but CCL does not govern the case with substitute transaction and without substitute transaction when the contract is avoided. Therefore, the contract should be governed by the CISG from a business perspective when a contract is concluded between China and HK; otherwise, a promisee could not be fully compensated for all loss incurred.