• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.221-237
• /
• 2016

This study aims to review the article 26 of UCP 600. The article 26 of UCP 600 deals with 'on deck cargo' and 'unknown wording' in L/C transaction. The article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document stating that the goods may be carried on deck is accept able. UCP 600 requires to reject transport documents which evidence that the goods are or will be loaded on deck. So the bank will not accept the B/L containing a clause stating the goods are or will be loaded on deck. But in practice a container cargo is carried on deck actually but we do not describe this fact on the Bill of Lading. The deck stowage is not allowed under the clean B/L. But in case of container cargo, the carrier has the right to carry the container on deck in practice. In spite of this practice the carrier can not describe this fact correctly like this : "The container cargo loaded on deck". If carrier describes on B/L like this, the bank rejects the B/L in L/C transaction. So the carrier describes as "the goods may be carried on deck" on the back of the B/L. But they loaded the container on deck actually. This article suggests some ideas on this matter. In addition, the article 26 of UCP 600 says that a transport document bearing a clause such as "shipper's load count" or "said by shipper to contain" is acceptable. This means that a carrier has no responsibility on the contents of containers. In case of FCL Cargo, it is impossible for a carrier to check the details of container cargo. Therefore it is inevitable to insert the expressions such as "SLC(shipper's load and count)" or "STC(said to contain)". The wording described on the face of B/L should be interpreted as intended and consistently. The intention of the carrier is not the actual quantity or weight. So unknown wording does not represent the actual quantity or weight. But some cases show that the carriers are indemnified by such insertion but others reject the effectiveness of such insertion. So this study emphasizes that unknown wording can not fully indemnify the carriers and that the insertion of such expressions shall be minimized.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.36
• /
• pp.87-109
• /
• 2007

This Comment explores the ICSID case of CMS Gas Transmission Company v. Argentine Republic, awarded on May 12, 2005. The Part II of this Comment first describes the relevant facts of the case including the some background for readers' understanding and the Part III summaries the claimant's requests and the decisions rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Award. At Part IV, the Comment addresses the issue of determinating laws applicable to the merits of dispute in case that the parties of the case have not chosen a governing law, and at Part V, takes a close look into three main issues of (i) the indirect expropriation of the investment, (ii) the breach of fair and equitable treatment and (iii) the protections under umbrella clauses. In this CMS case, we see first that while the Tribunal affirmed that any indirect expropriation can occur from incidental interference depriving the foreign investor of the use or reasonable-to-be-expected economic benefit even if not necessarily to the obvious benefit of the host State, the Tribunal denied the occurrence of indirect expropriation in this case by holding that the Government of Argentina has not breached the standard of protection laid down in the Treaty. Secondly, however, regarding the issue of fair and equitable treatment, we see that the Tribunal, finding Argentina's breach of obligations, affirmed that the foreign investor can expect the host State to act in a consistent manner, free from ambiguity and totally transparently in its relations with the foreign investor, which can give the foreign investor certain degree of foreseeability. Thirdly and finally, we see that, on base of the effect of the umbrella clause, the Tribunal recognized the obligation of the host State undertaken not to freeze the tariff regime or subject it to price controls and not to alter the basic rules governing contracts between the foreign investor and the host State without the first's written consent. However, the protection under the umbrella clause is available only when there is a specific breach of rights and obligations under BIT or a violation of contract rights protected under BIT.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.145-166
• /
• 2012

This article examines the limitations of the choice of law caused by Internationally Mandatory Rules in Entering into the Turn-Key Contracts. In June 2007, Clough Engineering, a corporation based in Western Australia, approached the Federal Court of Australia seeking injunctive relief and leave to commence proceedings against an entity located outside Australia, the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC). Clough had contracted with ONGC to provide a range of services in relation to the construction of gas and oil wells off the coast of India. The contract was governed by Indian law, and included a clause by which the parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. Yet the Federal Court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, principally because Clough had framed its claim as a plea for relief for contraventions of Australia's Trade Practices Act 1974. The result of this cases that it is possible for an arbitral tribunal to hear a claim made under the Trade Practices Act even if that claim arises "in connection with"a contract the proper law of which is not the law of Australia. However, in Transfield Philippines Inc v Pacific Hydro Ltd, the turnkey contract included a choice of law provision, selecting the law of the Philippines, and a clause providing that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement were to be arbitrated under the ICC Rules, with the seat in Singapore. Hearings were in fact conducted in Melbourne, Australia, although all awards were published in Singapore. The result of this cases that it would not be appropriate for an Australian court to adjudicate claims for misrepresentation under Australian statutes dealing with misleading and deceptive conduct, once the arbitral tribunal had determined, applying appropriate choice of law rules, that such claims are governed by the law of the Philippines. To do so would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings, usurp the jurisdiction of the tribunal and deny the intention of the parties as expressed by them in the arbitration agreement. In short, the Internationally Mandatory Rules as an active part of public order create limitation of party autonomy in choice of law rules in a different way. The court is fully entitled to refuse to use those rules of law applicable on the contract which are in the contradiction to the internationally mandatory rules of law of the forum. And the court may give an effect to those Internationally Mandatory Rules that form a part of a law of foreign country when deciding about applicability of certain rules of applicable law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.133-160
• /
• 2009

In International trade the buyer and seller are normally separated from on another not only by distance but also by differences in language and culture. It is rarely possible for the performance of obligations to be simultaneous and the performance of contracts therefore calls for trust in a situation in which the parties are unlikely to feel able to trust each other unless they have a longstanding and successful relationship. Thus the seller under an international contract of sale will not wish to surrender documents of title to goods to the buyer until he has at least an assurance of payment, and no buyer will wish to pay for goods until he has received them. A gap of distrust thus exists which is often bridged by the undertaking of an intermediary known and trusted by both parties who will undertake on his own liability to pay the seller the contract price in return for the documents of title and then pass the documents to the buyer in return for the reimbursement. This is a common explanation of the theory behind the documentary letter of credit in which the undertaking of a bank of international repute serves as a "guarantee" to each party that the other will perform his obligations. The independence principle, also referred to as the "autonomy principle", is at the core of letter of credit or bank guarantee law. This principle provides that the letter of credit or bank guarantee is independent of the underlying contractual commitment - that is, the transaction that the credit is intented to secure - between the applicant and the beneficiary ; the credit is also independent of the relationship between the bank and its customer, the applicant. The most important exception to the independence principle is the doctrine of fraud in the transaction. A strict interpretation of the rule that the guarantee is independent of the underlying transaction would lead to the conclusion that neither fraud nor manifest abuse of rights by the beneficiary would constitute an objection to payment. There is one major problem related to "Independent guarantees", namely abusive or unfair callings. The beneficiary may make an unfair calling under the guarantee. The countermeasure of beneficiary's unfair calling divided three cases. First, advance countermeasure namely by contract. In other words, when the formation of the contract, the parties must insert the Force Majeure Clause, Arbitration Clause to Contract, and clear statement to the condition for demand calling. Second, post countermeasure namely by court. Many countries, including the United States, authorize the courts to grant an order enjoining the issuer from paying or enjoining the beneficiary from receiving payment under the guaranty letter. Third, Export Insurance. For example, the Export Credit Guarantees Department is prepared, subject to certain conditions, to cover the risk of unfair calling. Of course, KEIC in Korea is cover the risk of the all things for guarantees. On international projects, contractor performance is usually guaranteed by either a standby letters of credit or Independent guarantee. These instruments will be care the parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.195-216
• /
• 2016

In determining the content of the FET standard, the tribunals stated protection of investor's legitimate expectations, due process and denial of justice, transparency, discrimination and arbitrariness, good faith, etc. The most major elements of the FET standard is the protection of the investor's legitimate and reasonable expectations. It is necessary to consider whether it is possible to what the expectations of investors are protected as legitimate and it is formed under any circumstances. If host state frustrate investor's legitimate expectations, it found a breach of the FET. The host state's specific assurance may reinforce investor's expectations, but such explicit statement is not always necessary. The host state must preserve a stable environment for investments. However, It must not be understood as the inalterability of the host state's legal framework. It implies that the host state's subsequent changes should be made consistently and predictably. The host state is entitled to exercise a reasonable regulatory authority to respond to changing circumstances in the public purpose. Therefore, whether the violation FET shall be determined through a balanced against the investor's legitimate expectations and the host state's reasonable regulatory exercise in the public interest. And investor should keep in mind that the principle of proportionality is applied unless host state provides stabilization clause or similar commitments to investor. Also host state should establish the basis of an argument about reasonable regulatory authority for public interest.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.49-73
• /
• 2012

India is a gigantic market with a population of 1.2 billion and an economy that is growing at the second-fastest pace in the world. The volume of trade between India and Korea has been sharply increased with the increase of dispute since 2000. Although avoidance of disputes is always a priority, it is also important to prepare methods of dispute resolution which are efficient and economical. So, understanding of Indian dispute resolution system is a necessary requirement for successful business operation with Indian companies. This article analyzed and compared with the various ways of Indian ADR such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, Lok Adalat and arbitration in order to help the Korean traders who enter into business with the Indian companies to settle their disputes efficiently. In conclusion, this article suggests the following ways to overcome problems of dispute with Indian companies: First, the Korean companies should recognize the characteristics of Indian ADR Ways respectively. Second, the Korean companies should utilize the conciliation or the mediation in small claim but arbitration in large claim. Third, Write a contract and insert the KCAB's standard arbitration clause in their contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.145-164
• /
• 2007

The Arbitration costs provided in Article 31 consist of arbitrators' fees, arbitrators' expenses, ICC administrative expenses, expenses of experts appointed by the Arbitral Tribunal, and parties' costs. Among them the first three items are independently determined by the Court in accordance with the Scale, while another two items are determined by the arbitrator and each party. The three items determined by the Court are communicated by Secretariat to the Arbitral Tribunal for inclusion in the award following the approval of the draft submitted to the Court. Also the final award may decide which of the parties shall bear them or in what proportion they shall be borne by the parties. According to Article 31(3), the arbitrators have complete jurisdiction or discretion to allocate the costs. Three common approaches are as follows; First, all of the costs are borne by the losing party. Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the outcome of the case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Courts are shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include intentions in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example, if the parties wish to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs or fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause in their contract. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators [and the arbitral institution] shall be borne by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witness and preparation and presentation of its case" And also, if the parties wish expressly to link any allocation of costs, and fees to the result of the award the following could be added to the arbitration clauses. "The arbitrators may award to the prevailing party, if any, as determined by the arbitrators, its costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees"

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.159-185
• /
• 2011

This paper is intended to discuss the controversial issue of the principles of change circumstances under the legal system of international commercial transactions. The principles of change circumstances, so called clausula rebus sic stantibus is the legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept). The practical needs of international transactions differ from the established concepts of national contracts law. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal system and theories under the regimes of international commercial transactions such as the CISG, the PICC, and the PECL. Clausula rebus sic stantibus does not apply if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurrence of the changed circumstance. It only relates to the changed circumstances that were never contemplated by the parties. This paper has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC, PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3(in addition to Article 7.1.7), PECL Article 6.111(in addition to 8.108). It is time when we should reconsider its legal system with great interest in order to harmonize with the international standpoint. It will be the turning point of our viepoint under the international commercial transactions.