• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 2016

Under the Korean legal system, as an actual carrier is not the contractual party to the contract for carriage of goods by sea, it has been tortiously liable for the damage to, or loss of cargo, should there be the negligence by its part. However, the Rotterdam Rules introduces a revolutionary liability regime for the actual carrier. According to the Rotterdam Rules, the liability of the actual carrier is same with that of a contractual carrier with the result that a shipper is entitled to bring the direct action to the actual carrier, as well as the contractual carrier on the same basis. Nevertheless, it is expected to take long time for the new approach in respect of actual carrier's liability to be confirmed by many countries, and furthermore most of shipping countries including Korea still adopt the Hague-Vis by Rules where the shipper is not allowed to bring the direct action to the actual carrier. This study reviews on whether or not the alteration of actual carrier's liability based on Rotterdam Rules would be reasonable, considering the current Korean legal system. Furthermore, this study, whilst recognizing that the overall introduction of the new liability regime is somewhat premature, suggests the imposition of contractual liability to the actual carrier from a long-term perspective. Having in mind that the article 809 of the Korean Commercial Act allows the shipper to bring the direct action to the shipowner only in the case that a time charterer is the contractual carrier, this study explores a method to apply the contractual liability to the actual carrier in the case that a slot charterer or freight forwarder is the contractual carrier, in order to establish the uniform liability system.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.119-148
• /
• 2015

Generally, the liability for breach is defined as the civil liability that arises from the conduct of violation of a contract. There are two notable principles governing liability for breach that have fundamental impacts on the unified Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter Chinese Contract Law) in the remedies. In China, during the drafting of the Contract Law, there was a great debate as to whether damages for breach of contract ought to follow the fault principle or to follow the strict liability principle. Ultimately the Chinese Contract Law follows the model of the CISG on this point, namely, it follows the strict liability principle (article 107) with an exemption cause of force majeure. Under Chinese Contract Law, it is interpreted as strict liability in principle. Strict Liability is a notion introduced into Chinese Contract Law from the Anglo-Saxon Law. The strict liability or no fault doctrine, on the contrary, allows a party to claim damages if the other party fails to fulfill his contractual obligations regardless of the fault of the failing party. Pursuant to the strict liability doctrine, if the performance of a contract is due, any non-performance will constitute a breach and the fault on the party in breach is irrelevant. This paper reviews problems of legal character or legal ground of contractual liability in Chinese contract law. Specifically, focusing on the interpretation of Chinese contract law sections and analysis of three cases related contractual liability in freight agency, the paper proposes some implications of structural features of Chinese contract law and international commercial transactions.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2006

In recent years, as well as the other countries, medical dispute cases increase continuously in China. one of the reason that medical cases increase rapidly like this is after reformation and opening people's sense of independence, law and right come to be high, but a theoretical study about medical malpractice liability is insufficient and there is deficiency at legislation from 1986 civil law general rule is carried out in Chinese. but it is difficulty to deal with those more and more complicated medical dispute only according to the law above. so in 2001 The Chinese Supreme Court established the judicial construction about civil litigation evidence which regulated the shift of the burden of proof of medical malpractice and the relation of cause and effect from the plaintiffs to the defendants. in 2002 the State Council made out Incident of Malpractice Processing Rule. but many scholar pointed out the problem in it. on the other side, according to Chinese Contract Law parties could choose contractual or tort liability to prosecute. but because of the judicial construction above majority of people asked tort liability. of course there are some cases asking contractual liability. then this paper aim at analysis of the Chinese medical malpractice liability, especially of the problems about the subject of responsibility, burden of proof and scope of responsibility.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Building Construction
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.195-202
• /
• 2018

The defects that are bound to arise in most construction projects cause disputes among the contracting parties regarding the defect warranty liability (DWL)guaranteed by the retention of the contractor's performance security at the end of the performance period of the contract. Most current projects involve a multiple-tier contractual relationship, causing the liability for some defects to overlap. In addition, many construction projects are made up of multiple detailed work types which an expert hired by the owner inspects the part completed by the contractor and pays an interim payment. However, after the completion of work, the contractor will still hold the defect warranty liability. In a scenario in which the work is delayed due to reasons for which the owner is responsible, the defect warranty liability period is also increased, imposing an additional burden on the contractor. In this study, basic research was carried out with the goal of reducing problems related to defect warranty liability Problems related to defect warranty liability cases and the nature of the defect warranty liability period were investigated. Possible solutions to the problems caused by the DWL that were suggested include the separation of the negligence liability period and the strict liability period, as well as the introduction of a retention money system.

• Proceedings of the Korean Reliability Society Conference
• /
• 2004.04a
• /
• pp.41-51
• /
• 2004

Contractual agreement. Established on sale of product. Establishes. Buyer responsibility. Limitations. Seller liability.(omitted)

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.176-191
• /
• 2023

Purpose - When recovered through arbitration a contractual penalty that is disproportionately high can become grounds for challenging an arbitral award or an obstacle to its enforcement within Russian jurisdiction. This article investigates how violation of the principle of proportionality can affect the enforcement and challenging of arbitral awards in Russia. Based on the examination of the current legislation, along with the analysis of recent court cases on the subject, the ultimate object of this article is to discern practical recommendations for Korean practitioners who are looking to challenge and/or enforce arbitral awards in Russian courts. Design/methodology - The research process included the reviewing of current Russian legislation conducted in concurrence with academic literature review, searching and analyzing recent court cases where the relevant legal provisions and concepts were applied, and formulating practical implications of the research at its final stage. Findings - Through its relation to the principle of fairness/justice the authors establish the connection between the principle of proportionality and the public policy of Russia. Analysis of recent court cases showed two conflicting trends of whether a disproportionate penalty can be considered a public policy violation. The authors offer practical recommendations on how to substantiate a relevant claim regarding contractual penalty reduction by the court, depending on the desired outcome. Originality/value - The article contains an up-to-date summary of the legal provisions on the principle of proportionality of civil liability in Russia and identifies the most recent trends in court practice on the issue that is not covered by existing studies.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.33-53
• /
• 2014

This study examines the seller's liability for defects in title of goods under SGA. If the contracting parties choose SGA as a governing law, they should pay attention to whether a contractual stipulation for defects in title of goods is a condition or a warranty. It is because SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty. And its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Under SGA s 12(1) as a condition, in a contract of sale, the seller has a right to sell the goods at the time of contract, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have such a right at the time when the property is to pass. Under SGA s 12(2) as a warranty, there is an implied warranty that (a) the goods are free, and will remain free until the time when the property is to pass, from any charge or encumbrance and (b) the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods as long as the buyer retains an interest in the goods. But the seller will not be liable if the third party unlawfully interferes with the buyer's possession.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.297-336
• /
• 2009

In modern industrial society carriage of dangerous goods by sea becomes more increasing than ever before. Dangerous goods are required for special care and handling in that shipment of dangerous goods could affect safety of the vessel and other cargoes. It is also true that dangerous goods could be used as a means of terrorism. his article investigates allocation of risk and liabilities between parties involved in the carriage of dangerous goods by sea. More specifically, this study examines principles of strict liability of the shipper in shipment of dangerous goods with some limitations based upon recent cases. Furthermore this article investigates the issues on identity of shipper who bears strict liability to the carrier where there exist actual or documentary shipper other than the contractual shipper. Lastly, whether it is reasonable that the transfer of strict liability to the transferee, who does not have opportunity to verify dangerous nature of the goods before shipment, by endorsing bills of lading will be discussed critically.