• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2012

CISG article 74 establishes the general formula applicable in all cases where an aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages. It provides that damages for breach of contract comprise all losses, including loss of profits, caused by the breach, to the extent that these losses were foreseeable by the breaching party at the time the contract was concluded. An aggrieved party may claim under article 74 even if entitled to claim under article 75 or 76. The latter articles explicitly provide that an aggrieved party may recover additional damages under article 74. Articles 75 and 76 apply only in cases where the contract has been avoided. Article 75 measures damages concretely by reference to the price in a substitute transactions, while article 76 measures damages abstractly by reference to the current market price. Article 76 (1) provides that an aggrieved party may not calculate damages under article 76 if it has concluded a substitute transaction under article 75. If however, an aggrieved party concludes a substitute transaction for less than the contract quantity, both articles 75 and 76 may apply. Pursuant to article 77, damages recoverable under articles 74, 75 or 76 are reduced if it is established that the aggrieved party failed to mitigate losses. The reduction is the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated. Article 78 entitles a party to interest on the price and any other sum that is in arrears.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.277-314
• /
• 2006

This article aims at analysing the reality of banks' liability resulting from the breach of contract on its part to keep the business secrecy with the supplier in the transferable credit, focusing on a English decision, Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3. In this case, the applicant, 'Econ', had purchased various varieties of pre-packed dog chews in bulk through 'Sam'(lst beneficiary) from 'PPLtd'(2nd beneficiary) in Thailand, using a transferable letter of credit issued by 'RBank'. 'Sam' charged a tremendous amount of mark-up on each transaction and it had not been disclosed to 'Econ', although the identity of 'PPLtd' was revealed to 'Econ' by various documents. However, 'RBank' made an unfortunate error to send an completion statement and other documents including 'PPLtd.'s invoice to 'Econ' instead of to 'Sam'. The effect of the Bank's error was to reveal to 'Econ' the substantial profit that 'Sam' was making on these transactions. CEO of 'Econ' was furious and, as a result, decided to cut 'Sam' out of its importing system and terminated their relationship. 'Sam' sued 'RBank' for damages to recover the loss of profits which could have been possibly made, if the information on the mark-up would not have been exposed to 'Econ'. The House of Lord held that 'RBank' was in breach of its duty of confidence, so 'Sam' was entitled to recover damages on a decreasing scale over 4 years, since there was no specific undertaking from the letter of credit.