• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.88-105
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper studies whether economic sanctions can be used as grounds for a party to an international sales contract to get an exemption if he fails to meet his contractual obligation. Because the answer can differ depending on the governing law of the contract, this study focuses on CISG, the most widely recognized international uniform legal instrument as the governing law of the international sale of goods. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on analyzing the conditions to meet before getting an exemption under CISG. For such analysis, this paper examined various scholarly writings, cases, and hypothetical examples reflecting a wide variety of economic sanction measures. Findings - The findings of this paper are as follows. The main provision for exemption under CISG is Article 79(1), which provides for an exemption for a party that failed to perform if such failure was caused by an impediment that was uncontrollable, unforeseeable, and unavoidable; either a seller or a buyer may rely on the Article for his non-performance, delay, or defective performance. The Article is applicable not only where the economic sanction caused impossibility of performance but also where it caused hardship. The economic sanction will likely be found to be an uncontrollable impediment; however, it will be relatively more difficult to prove it to be unforeseeable or unavoidable. Originality/value - The subject of this paper is whether a party can be exempted from liability under CISG when he fails to perform his contractual obligations due to economic sanctions. Given that this issue is now actually faced by many involved in international trade, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners and companies alike.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.1
• /
• pp.257-285
• /
• 2011

This thesis has studied about the legal characteristic of injection of the trial drug, the position of the pharmaceutical firm as a contractor of the clinical trial, the possibility of compulsory performance of consistent injection of the trial drug, and the damage claim caused in the process of the clinical trial from the viewpoint of protecting the trial subject in the clinical trial. According to court's judgement in the United States, the lawsuit of the trial subject, although the trial subject had expected consistent injections, was dismissed because there was no direct contract between pharmaceutical and trial subject. However, Helsinki Declaration prescribe the medical research as follows. 'All patients who participated in the research should be able to use the best precaution, diagnosis, and treatment proved by the final outcome of the research'. The trial subject is entitled to demand only the pharmaceutical firm which developed and provided the trial drug, and the pharmaceutical firm has the obligation to supply the trial drug to the trial subject. Therefore, it would be not enough to protect the trial subject if the pharmaceutical firm which makes the trial drug is ruled out. In addition, especially, in case the trial drug has a constant effect with the aim of treatment, if the injection of the trial drug is suddenly stopped, the trial subject would not have the benefit of treatment by the trial drug. In this case, the best remedy against the damage is to urge a constant injection of the trial drug. Thus, in certain case, it is reasonable to consider that the pharmaceutical firm has the obligation to supply the trial drug to the trial subject constantly, and it is also necessary to compel it through effective means in case the pharmaceutical firm do not fulfill its obligation to supply the trial drug. However, as an essential prerequisite for the assertion mentioned above, it should be judged under the principle of good faith considering the concrete situation, that is, what roles the pharmaceutical firm has played.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.43-64
• /
• 2023

Purpose - This paper studies whether CISG can be a suitable governing law for pure service contracts. When CISG was first drafted, there was little disagreement on the fact that contracts for the sale of goods and those for the provision of services were two different types of contract. Based on this understanding, CISG explicitly provides that the Convention will apply to contracts where the preponderant part of the contractual obligation is on the sale of goods, not services. However, as more sales transactions have come to include more elements of services, mainly due to the advancement of the IoT industry, the distinction between goods and services became more blurred. Based on the observation of recent changes, some scholars even argue that such a change supports the applicability and suitability of CISG to even pure service contracts. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate their argument. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on two separate but related issues: CISG's 'applicability' and 'suitability' to service contracts. For the first issue, this paper will examine the rules of interpretation of international treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and will apply its rules to find the proper answer. For the second issue, this paper will perform logical and empirical analyses on the reasoning employed by scholars claiming the suitability of CISG to service contracts. Findings - This paper concludes that CISG does not, and should not, apply to pure service contracts. The argument that CISG applies to pure service contracts directly contravenes Article 3(2) of the Convention, which expressly states that it does not apply to a contract wherein the preponderant part of its obligation is about services rather than sales. Similarly, CISG is not a suitable governing law for pure service contracts because it aims provide rules specifically tailored to the needs of transactions of sales of goods, not services. Servitization of sales of goods transaction does not change this conclusion. Originality/value - This paper presents different views from those offered by some eminent scholars on the issue of applicability and suitability of CISG to service contracts. By doing so, it is hoped that the confusion caused in discussions so far are clarified. Hopefully, this paper can also provide practical guidance to practitioners engaged in the fields of international sales, services, and IoT industries.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.201-226
• /
• 2004

P & I Clubs are mutual and non-profit making insurers which offer shipowners cover for the contractual and third-party liabilities. Whereas most shipowners obtain P & I insurance to cover for their legal liabilities, they also obtain hull insurance to cover against damages to the hull of their vessels from commercial hull insurers. P & I insurance was distinguished from hull insurance in respect that it offered non-limited cover to shipowner member, but there was a serious debate between P & I Clubs in respect of the non-limited cover. A compromise by International Group of P & I Clubs eventually emerged under which, with effect from 20 February 1997, a financial cap was placed on the obligation of each shipowner to pay catasrophe calls to his club(20% of each ship's property limitation fund under 1976 Limitation Convention). Nevertheless many shipowners felt that this new cap on their potential catastrophe call had been set still too high, while others resisted any reduction in the figure established by the compromise. In the Meantime, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in June 1997, in which it indicated its objections with a compulsory single limit common th all the Group clubs as high as the 1997 compromise. Eventually the board of all the Group clubs decided that the figure of 20% of the Limitation Convention per ship property funds should be dropped down to 2.5% from 20 February 1999.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2003

The CISG approach was intended to make the remedial system clear, but produced ambiguity, and complexity. The CISG does not differentiate between main, auxiliary and participatory obligations. There is no distinction between breaches of main or breaches of auxiliary obligations, rather, a distinction is made between fundamental and other breaches of contract. Articles 25 gives the definition of fundamental breach of contract. This concept is the essential of avoidance and remedial system in the CISG. This concept, however, is ambiguous. The fact that the fundamentality of a breach of contract in many cases is the condition for an avoidance of contract, is expression of the trend of the CISG to preserve contracts, which I consider as essential in international trade. The elements which define a substantial detriment are extremely complex. It will become obvious that the relevant detriment is not a static element, but in many instances occurs only when the breach of contract continues. It should be added that it is the circumstances of each individual case which are relevant. It is to be stressed that a fundamental breach of contract must constitute also a non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.647-655
• /
• 2014

In this research, unlike other fishing, the diving apparatus fishery is that the diver is engaged in fishing for profits. Because it is unique fishery, conflicts can be occurred in members. So, the purpose of this research is to define the contractual relationship between the parties of the diving apparatus fishery. For example, the relationship between the owner and diver and the owner and fishing ship crew. In addition, civil liability of default on the obligation was reviewed. Also, because the trouble was occurred by illegal fishing, criminal liability of ship crash caused by illegal diving apparatus fishery was considered. As a result, It is important to notifying the necessity of some method for the status of diver and fishing ship crew in diving apparatus fishery. moreover, It is need to educate the risk of illegal fishery for the parties of diving apparatus fishery.