• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.45-66
• /
• 2009

Licensing of information is the standard of the computer information business today. The huge bulk of vendors license their computer information products. The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act(UCITA), therefore, does not originate licensing contracts. UCITA was developed to provide basic, recognizable default rules for the existing licensing activity that goes on and expands as commerce in computer information expands. UCITA's rules govern licensing of contracts for computer information from formation through performance, including remedies if there is a breach of contract. Included in UCITA are rules for warranties, both implied and express, and rules pertaining to risk of loss in a computer information transaction. Most of the rules in UCITA are the traditional and familiar rules of contract from the law of sales and from the common law, but adapted to the special nature of computer information licensing contracts. Freedom of contract is a dominating underlying policy for UCITA, exactly as that principle is the foundation for the law of commercial transactions, generally, and exactly as that law has served all commercial transactions in the United States and has contributed to the economic growth and health of the United States.

• 경영과정보연구
• /
• 제6권
• /
• pp.21-43
• /
• 2001

Contract requires, on principle, a meeting of minds. The basic elements of that contact are an offer by one party and an acceptance of the terms of the offer by the other party. In the electronic commerce an offer and the acceptance of an offer may be expressed by dispach or receipt of data messages. The contract which a data messages is used in the formation may be called electronic contract. The formation of the electronic contract is regulated by the Civil Code or the Commerce Code. The time of the contract formation is regulated by the Civil Code and the Commerce Code. But the time of dispach and receipt of the data message is stated in Article 9 of the Fundamental Law on Electronic Commerce. In this article the dispatch of a data message occurs when it enters an information system outside the control of the originator or of the person who sent the date message on behalf of the originator. The time of receipt of a data message, if the adressee has designated an information system for the purpose of receiving data message, is at the time when the data message enters the designated information system; or if the data message is sent to an information system of the adressee that is not the designated information system, at the time when the data message is retrieved by the addressee; if the addressee has not designated an information system, receipt occurs when the data message enters an information system of the addressee. The time of the electronic contract formation depends on the Civil Code or the Commerce Code and this Article 9 of the Fundamental Law on Electronic Commerce. An electronic contract may be formed by an offer and the acceptance of an offer by dispach or receipt of data message. An offer can not be withdrawn after it is accepted. But in mail-order sales and installment dealing an offer can be revoked after the goods were delivered. In this case the contract is lapsed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.95-124
• /
• 2012

Referring to Buyer's obligations, the Buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. There are vital importances to the Buyer's Fundamental Breach. The legal effects of a breach of contract do not depend on the nature of the obligation broken, but on the consequences of the breach the detriment to the other party. The obligations mentioned to Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. They include a number of different acts which could be seen as the subject-matter of different obligations. CISG gives further details for the payment of the price in Articles 54 to 59 and for taking delivery in Article 60. The buyer has to take delivery at the respective place within a reasonable period after this communication since he cannot be required to take delivery immediately. Refusing to take delivery in case of delay not constituting a ground for avoiding the contract makes no sense, since this would lead to even later delivery. For the understanding of Buyer's Fundamental Breach, We need to search the Cases referring to the breach of buyer's main obligations.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• pp.31-48
• /
• 2012

If see CISG's passing of risk and altered regulations first, when sales contract accompanies transport of goods and seller does not have duty to deliver goods at particular place, when deliver to the first carter to send to purchaser according to sales contract risk passes to purchaser, and when there is duty that seller must deliver goods to carter at specification place, when goods are delivered to carter at same place, risk does not pass to purchaser. Second, risk about transporting goods passes to purchaser at signing a contract. But, when there is special assessment, risk passes to purchaser when goods are delivered to carter who publish document that embody contract of carriage. Nevertheless, it is loss if seller did not notify this truth to occasion purchaser who could knew loss or damage of goods or know justly at sales contract conclusion defamation danger seller of be burdensome. Third, seller has responsibility about damage or loss as long as hide in own artificiality or forbearance after risk passes to purchaser. Regulation about risk in Incoterms 2010 was separated into 11 condition, and move time of risk differs in angle condition. It is appeared that the substance handles relatively comprehensively because compare in Incoterms 2010 although it is because it becomes if it examines regulation about deliver and passing of risk of goods setting in CISG relatively concise. Also, segments that can become posibility of analysis controversy exist.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.49-69
• /
• 2017

Making a international contract of sale is not a simple work. International Trade parties(seller and buyer) may choose trade terms such as FOB or CIF to simplify their contracts and avoid misunderstanding of international commercial practice. Incoterms is the international rules for the interpretation of the trade terms, and firstly regulated by the ICC in 1936. The latest version is Incoterms 2010. Incoterms 2010 governs certain responsibilities between the seller and the buyer under the international contract of sale. Moreover, Incoterms 2010 provides the standard of division of costs relating to contract of carriage. But we should note that Incoterms 2010 is not the part of contract of carriage. The writer points out that there is no consistence principle in distributing the special costs under the contract of carriage like unloading cost from the transport vehicle. To avoid the dispute between the parties, it is more safe for international traders to fully and completely understand on the customs and practice of carriage of goods. Incoterms 2010 provides more detailed method of delivery of goods than CISG and RAFTD. Concerning the method of delivery of goods, CISG and RAFTD simply provide that the seller shall place the goods at the discharge of buyers. The writer suggests the basic principles to allocate the special costs of delivery of goods according to the trade terms under Incoterms 2010.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this paper is to examine the customs clearance impediment and trade parties breaches of international sales contract by the impediment. Customs clearance impediment arises when (a)clearance is not permitted, (b) importation goods are confiscated, (c)clearance delay without expectation, and (d) additional excessive trade cost caused in the process of clearance. This kind of clearance impediment may cause the breach of international sales contract. And it depends on its contents of contract and causal sequence i.e. cause and effect respectively in determining who is liable for it. If one party exemptions by Article 79 CISG, next three elements must be proved. (a)The failure was due to an impediment beyond his control; (b)the impediment was reasonably unforeseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and (c)the impediment was reasonably impossible to overcome. But the customs clearance impediment is not easy to prove these three elements, the party who is responsible the customs clearance may not be exemptions by Article 79 CISG. And, according to review, it is concluded that the buyer, rather than seller, is liable for the damage which is caused in the process of clearance. It is also confirmed that the seller is sometimes liable for depending on clauses of contracts i.e. quality conditions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제72권
• /
• pp.25-55
• /
• 2016

The Buyer shall demand to the Builder the repayment of the pre-delivery instalments paid in case of the Builder's default under a ship-building contract. The Buyer require a refund guarantee issued by a financial institution for a security for the repayment of the pre-delivery instalments paid. As the title of a refund guarantee, in practice, is various, we should look into the contents or the expressions in a guarantee to decide whether a guarantee is a refund guarantee. A refund guarantee, a sort of independent bank guarantee, has characteristic of abstractness, and is independent from the ship-building contract. A refund guarantee is available against the beneficiary's first written demand and signed statement certifying that the Builder failed to make the refund in accordance with the ship-building contract. The guaranteed amount of a refund guarantee will be automatically increased in accordance with the Builder's receipt of the respective instalment, which is not in the other advance payment guarantee. These characteristics of a refund guarantee are derived from the expressions in a refund guarantee rather than inherent therein. This illustrates that careful attention is required to the contents and expressions of the main clauses in a refund guarantee.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.111-180
• /
• 2009

According to English law, in a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure to be insured. However, Unites States law affords the implied warranty of seaworthiness a great deal of latitude. In the case of voyage policies, it has been traditionally held that the assured is bound not only to have his vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage but also to keep her so, insofar as this can be achieved by himself and his agents, throughout the voyage. Additionally, a defect in seaworthiness, arising after the commencement of the risk, and permitted to continue from bad faith or want of ordinary prudence or diligence on the part of the insured or his agents, discharges the insurer from liability for any loss consequent to such bad faith, or want of prudence or diligence; but does not affect the insurance contract in reference to any other risk or loss covered by the policy, and which is not caused or exacerbated by the aforementioned defect. One of the most important areas of difference in the marine insurance contract between the U.K. and U.S. is the breach of warranty. Prior to the Wilburn Boat case, the MIA was thought to hold that the effect of a breach of warranty was similar under American law -in that under the general maritime law literal compliance with all promissory warranties is required. In this case, the Court concluded that state law should apply to a marine insurance policy, and found that there was no federal rule addressing the consequences of a breach of warranty in marine polices. However, it is of the utmost importance that this case brought to a close the imperative concordance between English and American law. Meanwhile, in relation to marine insurance contracts in Korea, this insurance is subject to English law and practice;, additionally, the international trade volume between Korea and the United States has assumed a vast scale. Therefore, we believe it is important to understand the differences in marine insurance law between the two countries in terms of marine insurance contracts, and most specifically warranties.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• pp.3-35
• /
• 2017

For recent years, several disputes between Korean consumers and multinational companies have arisen. Since the disputes were big and material that children's safety was at issue, a question started if Korean law properly has protected consumers' rights against multinational companies. While the Korean legal society tried to legislate punitive compensation with this concern, the U.S. Supreme Court reached an interesting case law regarding consumer contracts. A recent trend on consumer contracts in the United States shows that general terms have arbitration clause with class action waiver. As much as international arbitration has worked as the most effective resolution in international commercial disputes, the concept is still foreign and the experts are not approachable to lay individual consumers. However, class action in arbitration can hugely help for lay individual consumers to bring a case before arbitration tribunal. California courts consistently showed the analysis that the practical impact of prohibiting class action in arbitration clause is to ban lay individual consumers from fighting for their rights. However, the Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause shall be enforced as parties agree even if consumers practically cannot fight for their rights in the end. Even though consumer contracts are a typical example of lack of parity and of adhesive contract, the Supreme Court still applies liberalism that parties are equal in power and free to agree. This case law has a crucial implication since Korean consumers buy goods and services from the U.S. and other countries in everyday life. Accordingly, they are deemed to agree on the dispute resolution clauses, which might violate their constitutional right to bring their cases before the adjudication tribunal. This issue could be more important than adopting punitive compensation because consumers' rights are not necessarily governed by Korean law but by the governing law of the general terms and conditions chosen and written by the multinational companies. Thus this paper studies and analyzes the practical reality of international arbitration and influence of arbitration clause with class action waiver with the U.S. Supreme Court and California case laws.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.129-151
• /
• 2003

Nowadays even if environment of international commercial transaction is changing quickly municipal law could not meet with such change accordingly. So far, however, efforts towards unification have prevailingly taken the form of binding instruments, such as non-national or supranational legislation, international conventions or international model laws. Among them, the UNIDROIT Principles with parties' autonomous and yet non-binding character do not only meet the substantive requirements of a true law merchant. In addition they also counter some of the main points of criticism against the modern lex mercatoria. As such the Principles constitute a cornerstone in the lex mercatoria debate and may become the heart of the new lex mercatoria. The purpose of this article is to ask whether there could be applied the Principles in international commerce. For the purpose it is to investigate when the Principles are applied in international commerce and how effectively the Principles are applied for the decision in international commercial disputes. Even though the Principles are used for reference by parties involved for the voluntary regulation of their contract, it is sufficiently expected that the Principles are to be a stepstone of uniform contract law in international commerce. Until now cases of appling the Principles are not satisfied with its expectation as a source of non-legislative means of unification or harmonization of law. Given the party's autonomy in the contract, this is among other things because business parties are strongly tend to observe their national laws in their international commerce. And also, even though there are a number of neutral and uniform regulations for international commercial contracts, parties do not often recognize their usefulness with being up to expectation. In order to explore the applicability of the Principles a number of cases of ICC International Court of Arbitration and others are quoted.