• Proceedings of the Korean Society of Marine Engineers Conference
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.92-93
• /
• 2005

A contract for the shipbuilding is usually a complicated and involves statement of rights, obligations and responsibilities which each party agrees vis-a vis the other. The ultimate purpose of the contract is the sale and transfer of the finished ship by the builder to the buyer. Contracts for the construction and sale of ships are categorized as contracts for the sale of goods under English, United States, Germany and some countries law. On the other hand, The shipbuilding contract may be classified, not as a contract of sale but as a contract for work and materials under Korea, Japan and some countries law. Especially, most of countries are now well settled with regard to liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical injury and on the other for pure economic loss to remote owners of chattels. Where there is either a breach of contractual warranty or an implied warranty, there may be admiralty jurisdiction, depending once again on the situs of the event and its relationship to traditional maritime activity. Contract principles will be applied to the first type of warranty and tort principles will be applied to the second. First of all, this thesis is dealt with the contents of contract under English Law. Secondly, this thesis is analysed into the liability of shipbuilder in Products Liability under English, American and Korean Law comparisons. In conclusion, the author tries to give some suggestions as countermeasures of Products Liability to the shipbuilder in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.

• 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.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to examine the viewpoints of the different legal systems for the validity of LD Clause and the possibility of gap-filling function of UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Contract. The results of comparative study between common law system and civil law system, and between CISG and UNCDROIT Principles is as follows: First, common law system distinguishes LD Clause and Penalty Clause, but civil law system including Korean law does not strictly distinguish the difference between them, provided that the liquidated damages are not grossly excessive. Second, CISG does not concerned with the validity of LD Clause but entrust this matter to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law; conversely the Principles follow similar position of civil law system. The possibility of gap-filling of the Principles is more positive in the case of arbitration than in the case of litigation. On the basis of above study, I also checked the LD Clauses of ICC Model International Sales and the Model Contracts of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The LD Clauses of there two Model Contract seem very appropriate and reasonable for the reference in practical application. The appropriate, not excessive, LD Clause will contribute not only to eliminate the burden of proof for the actual damages, but also to enforce both parties to perform their obligations in their contracts. Therefore, When we make contract, we should keep in our mind to insert the reasonable and appropriate LD Clause in the sales contract. If not, so to speak, litigated damages are grossly excessive, the Clause may be invalid in some legal system.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.29
• /
• pp.39-61
• /
• 2006

The governing law in international commercial arbitration may be divided into governing arbitration law and governing substantive law. The former governs the parties' arbitration agreement and the conduct of any subsequent arbitration. But the later governs the parties' substantive rights and obligations, which means the law that governs contract formation and performance, and the law to be applied by the arbitrator to the merits of the dispute. The purpose of this paper is to examine how to determine the substantive governing law when there is express choice or implied choice between parties. Moreover this author checked any restrictions on party autonomy and also any possibilities to deviate from the governing law. In case of express choice the sources of the law or rules of law might be the national law of one of the parties, the neutral law, the general principles of law or lex mercatoria according to the arbitration law selected by the arbitral tribunal. Some arbitration laws or rules empower the arbitrator to decide the case ex aequo et bono or to act as amiable compositions. If the governing law could be determined expressly or impliedly by the parties, the arbitral tribunal would make a selection. In this case the criteria for selecting a governing law are not exactly same from country to country. But failing any indication by the parties as to governing law, the arbitral tribunal should apply the rules of law, the law or the law under the rule of conflict that the arbitrators consider applicable, according to the governing arbitration law. Among the connecting factors offered by the conflict rules, (which means the factors that the arbitrators consider applicable), some legal systems give precedence to the formation of the contract, other system to the place of performance of the contract, and others to the closest connection or centre of gravity. But the Rome Convention, which unified the conflict rules of the contracting states, gives precedence to the law of the domicile of the party which has to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract. Finally this author suggested the Choice of Law Clause which covers governing substantive law and governing arbitration law at the same time. Thus the UNIDROIT Principles as well as any national law may be included as a governing law in international arbitration. So when we make sales or service contract, we should take into consideration of the UNIDROIT Principles as a governing law or a supplement to the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.23-42
• /
• 2018

This study compares the SGA and CISG to find out the difference of the criteria for calculating damages. and it intends to give some important points in trade practice. The damages is intended to compensate the victim for the breach of contract but there are differences between SGA and CISG as follow. First, the SGA and CISG have the same purpose of claiming damages. Both laws and regulations are subject to a full indemnification to compensate for the breach of the contract by the amount equivalent to the loss suffered by the victim. Second, in the general principle related to the calculation of damages, both law enforcement officials are required to be able to predict damages caused by breach of contract. In the case of SGA, however, a foreseeability test or remoteness of damages is required for the relationship between the contract violation and the loss. In other words, it can be said that the causal relation between the contract violation and the damage is strictly applied rather than the CISG. Finally, both laws and regulations of SGA and CISG have a big difference in criteria for calculating damages. In the CISG, after the contract is canceled, it is classified according to the existence of the alternative transaction and the damage amount is calculated based on the contract price. On the other hand, the SGA estimates the loss based on the market price at the delivery of the goods, reflecting the change in the market price instead of the contract price of the goods.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.7
• /
• pp.108-121
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This paper studies whether the CISG is applicable to the arbitration agreement when the validity of the arbitration agreement becomes an issue. To make the study clear, it limits the cases assuming that the governing law of the main contract is the CISG and the arbitration agreement is inserted in the main contract as a clause. Also, this paper discusses only substantive and formal validity of the arbitration agreement because the CISG does not cover the questions of the parties' capacity and arbitrability of the dispute. Design/methodology - This paper is based on scholarly writings and cases focusing on the principle of party autonomy, formation of contract and the doctrine of separability to discuss characteristic of arbitration agreement. In analyzing the cases, it concentrates on the facts and reasonings that show how the relative regulations and rules are interpreted and applied. Findings - The findings of this paper are; regarding substantive validity of arbitration agreement, the courts and arbitral tribunals consider general principles of law for the contract and the governing law for the main contract. In relation to formal validity of arbitration agreement, the law at the seat of arbitration or the law of the enforcing country are considered as the governing law in preference to the CISG because of the recognition and enforcement issues. Originality/value - This paper attempts to find the correlation between the CISG and the arbitration agreement. It studies scholars' writing and cases which have meaningful implication on this issue. By doing so, it can provide contracting parties and practitioners with some practical guidelines about the governing law for the arbitration agreement. Furthermore, it can help them to reduce unpredictability that they may confront regarding this issue in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.59-81
• /
• 2001

There are two methods of quantifying the damages when the contract is avoided. One is 'concret' assessment, the other is 'abstract' assessment. The former looks to the actual cost incurred by the aggrieved party in concluding a contract for the substitute transaction, while the latter is based on the market price. The concrete method of assessment forms the starting point in the Civil Law systems. In the Common Law systems, it is likewise available. The aggrieved party is entitled to recover the difference between the cost of cover or (as the case may be) the proceeds of resale and the contract price. Both systems also recognize the abstract method of assessment. If the aggrieved party does not resell or cover, damages are equal to the difference between the price fixed by the contract and the market price. The CISG and the UNIDROIT Principles recognize expressly both concrete and abstract methods. Under the relevant articles, the aggrieved party can recover the damages assessed by one of the methods as well as any further damages such as loss of profit, incidental and consequential damages.