• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.77
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2018

Under CISG the places of delivery by the seller of the goods are: If the seller is not bound to deliver the goods at any other particular place and the contract of sale involves carriage of the goods, the seller has to hand the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. However, if the contract does not involve carriage of the goods, he has to place them at the buyer's disposal at the place where, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, both the seller and the buyer knew that the goods were at, or were to be manufactured or produced. This rule applies when the contract relates to specific goods, or unidentified goods to be drawn from a specific stock or to be manufactured or produced. Finally, in ant other cases the seller has to place the goods at the buyer's disposal at the place where the seller had his place of business at the time of the conclusion of the contract. As to time of delivery, if a date is fixed by or determinable from the contract, the seller has to deliver the goods on that date. If a period for delivery is fixed by or determinable from the contract, he has to deliver the goods on any date within that period. In this way the seller chooses the specific date of delivery within that period, while circumstances indicate otherwise that the choice is to be made by the buyer. There no such date or period, the seller has to deliver the goods within a reasonable time after the conclusion of the contract. If the seller delivers the goods before such the date or period, the buyer is entitled to take delivery or refuse to take delivery. Under these backgrounds of provisions of CISG, this study first suggests the concepts of the handing over of the goods by the seller to the carrier and the placing them at the buyer's disposal. Then it goes further to looks into exactly where and when the delivery has to occur. In these context, this study more examines what happens if there is a breach of contract by the seller in connection with the delivery. That is, if the seller delivers non-conforming goods or at wrong place; what if there is a partial delivery or a premature delivery.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to examine the obligations of delivery of the goods focusing on the methods of delivery under the Incoterms 2010, comparing with CISG. The Incoterms 2010 provides various methods of delivery of the goods under the each rule(11 rules). And it is a little confusing for the parties of the contract of sales. This study reviewed specific methods of delivery of the goods with the view of practitioner. The purpose of Incoterms is to avoid misunderstanding of the contract of sales and to promote the international transactions. The uncertainties of the Incoterms 2010 shall cause disputes between the parties. Especially, when vehicles are used to pick up and deliver the goods, which party is responsible for the loading and unloading the goods. Under the D-term, which party is responsible for unloading the goods from the vehicle reached at the named place of destination is a little confusing. This study suggest some ideas on the specific methods of delivery to mitigate uncertainties and accept current practices at the field. Firstly, under the EXW rule, the seller must deliver the goods on the arriving means of transport at the seller's premises. Secondly, under the FCA rule, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded at the other place except seller's premises. Thirdly, under the CPT, CIP rules, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded irrespective of the mode of transport at the place of destination. Fourthly, the FOB, CFR, CIF rules must adapt the container transport practice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.55-79
• /
• 2017

The Rotterdam Rules introduces new issues that have been ignored by previous international transport conventions. Among them, provisions on delivery of goods have been a much debated topic as it deviate from well established principles. Rotterdam Rules provides several alternatives in order to resolve uncertainty regarding delivery practice. The carrier have to make a resonable effort to deliver the goods following the required procedure which is different from transport document issued. Where the goods are not deliverable, the carrier could discharge from its obligations to deliver the goods when he deliver the goods by delivery instruction of shipper. In addition, he can take actions reasonably required according to circumstances if it is impossible to deliver the goods. These alternatives are not ideal, but they seem to be partly helping to solve practical problems arising in the process of delivery. However the delivery regime under the Rotterdam Rules could cause confusion in the traditional delivery principle. On the other hand, it puts a new burden on the parties concerned. In conclusion, the parties concerned should consider practical implications in issuing and transferring transport document as well as requesting and instructing delivery of goods.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.305-312
• /
• 2005

Pick-up/delivery of consumer goods to offices, shops, and restaurants in order to support urban lives is one of the most vital activities in a city. With economic growth and technological innovation, a greater variety of goods have come to be supplied, and pick-up/delivery of consumer goods has become more complex. Efficient urban goods movement in Central Business District(CBD} starts with an efficient system for loading/unloading, and pick-up/delivery activities. Loading/unloading activity may be carried out on-street, or on especially designated space inside or outside buildings. Therefore, purpose of this study is to clarity the efficient urban goods movement in CBD(also called the pick-up/delivery activity) from the three different types of loading/unloading facilities. For this purpose, the differences in loading/unloading and truck-trip activity time of each loading/unloading facility was compared by performing the simulation analysis.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.127-146
• /
• 2016

There are two aims of this research: one is to verify the role of bill of lading and the method of delivery for container goods and the other is to suggest alternative methods for the crisis of bill of lading; that is, goods are arrived in ports but bill of lading is not arrived. The results of the analyses are as follows. First, delivery of container goods should be performed to exchange with bill of lading. Carriers should deliver goods to consignees to exchange with one among the number of issued bill of lading. In addition, when goods are delivered to consignees by the bill of lading, the other bill of lading is invalid. Second, there are several methods of delivery which are not exchanged with bill of lading such as letter of guarantee, surrender bill of lading, sea waybill, non-negotiable straight bill of lading and consignment of bill of lading to a captain. Delivery of container goods should be performed by exchanging bill of lading. In addition, there are two delivery methods by letter of guarantee: one is illegal and the other is legal. If there is damage for a bonafide-fide holder of bill of lading, carriers should make compensation for the damage. These methods consist of the delivery of goods which is not exchanged with bill of lading and there are two advantages of the methods; one is that consignees enjoy saving bonded warehouse fee and quick disposal after arriving goods and the other is that carriers immediately use vessels after unloading containers. However, the methods are based on utmost good faith between a seller and a buyer.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

Seller's obligation on the Delivery of Goods and Handing over the Documents are key elements in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) has been entered into force on 1 January 1988 to create international certainty and uniformity in the law and to govern issues that arise in an international sale of goods transaction. The Incoterms were first published by the ICC in 1936 and were most recently revised in 2010. Incoterms 2010 are entering into force on 1 January 2011. The Incoterms focus on the seller's delivery obligations and reflect the principle that the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods. This study highlights basic rules covering seller's obligation of delivery of goods and handing over the documents under the Incoterms 2010 and the United Nations Convention and Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In the second chapter, this study will provide analyses and compare these two legal systems in relation to the basic rules governing delivery of goods and passing of risks in contract of sale. This chapter evaluates the meaning of Article 31 and Article 67(1) and FOB, CFR, CIF & FCA, CPT, CIP terms of Incoterms 2010. Chapter Three will focus on handing over the documents. Article 30 CISG imposes the seller's primary obligations to deliver the goods and to hand over documents relating to them. Article 34 CISG supplements the seller's obligation in relation to documents by providing that the seller must hand over documents relating to the goods. In contrast, Article 58(1) CISG imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay only when it has received the goods or documents controlling their disposition. I reviewed only some of the documents relating to the goods are documents controlling their disposition. This chapter considers the meaning of the phrase "documents that control the disposition of the goods and do not control disposition of the goods." Finally, the fourth chapter will assess the meaning of rules of CISG and Incoterms 2010.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.377-401
• /
• 1999

This study is focused on the privity of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, so to speak, privity between B/L holder and carrier by transfer of bill of lading, privity by attornment to delivery order and conflict between bills of lading and charterparty terms. Under a CIF contract, possession of the bill of lading is equivalent to possession of the goods, and delivery of the bill of lading to the buyer or to a third party may be effective to pass the property in the goods to such person. The bill of lading is a document of title enabling the holder to obtain credit from banks before the arrival of the goods, for the transfer of the bill of lading can operate as a pledge of the goods themselves. In addition, it is by virtue of the bill of lading that the buyer or his assignee can obtain redress against the carrier for any breach of its terms and of the contract of carriage that it evidences. In other words the bill of lading creates a privity between its holder and the carrier as if the contract was made between them. The use of delivery orders in overseas sales is commen where bulk cargoes are split into more parcels than there are bills of lading, and this practice gives rise to considerable difficulties. For example, where the holder of a bill of lading transferred one of the delivery orders to the buyer who presented it to the carrier and paid the freight of the goods to which the order related, it was held that there was a contract between the buyer and the carrier under which the carrier could be made liable in repect of damage to the goods. The contract was on the same terms as that evidenced by, or contained in, the bill of lading, which was expressly incorporated by reference in the delivery order. If the transferee of the delivery order presents it and claims the goods, he may also be taken to have offered to enter into an implied contract incorporating some of the terms of the contract of carriage ; and he will, on the carrier's acceptance of that offer, not only acquire rights, but also incur liabilities under that contract. Where the terms of the charterparties conflict with those of the bills of lading, it is interpreted as below. First, goods may be shipped in a ship chartered by the shipper directly from the shipowner. In that case any bill of lading issued by the shipowner operates, as between shipowner and charterer, as a mere receipt. But if the bill of lading has been indorsed to a third party, between that third party and carrier, the bill of lading will normally be the contract of carriage. Secondly, goods may be shipped by a seller on a ship chartered by the buyer for taking delivery of the goods under the contract of sale. If the seller takes a bill of lading in his own name and to his own order, the terms of that bill of lading would govern the contractual relations between seller and carrier. Thirdly, a ship may be chartered by her owner to a charterer and then subchartered by the chaterer to a shipper, to whom a bill of lading may later be issued by the shipowner. In such a case, the bill of lading is regarded as evidencing a contract of carriage between the shipowner and cargo-owners.

• Electronics and Telecommunications Trends
• /
• v.35 no.1
• /
• pp.71-79
• /
• 2020

Since Amazon announced plans to deliver goods to customers using drones, many countries and companies have become interested in drone logistics delivery services and have begun testing drone delivery for various goods based on service scenarios. Whenever there is news of a successful drone delivery anywhere in the world, people increasingly expect the delivery of goods through drones. Although delivery services using drones are currently in a trial-and-error stage, given technical limitations and institutional and social constraints, a complete shift to drone logistics delivery is not yet possible. In anticipation of the drone logistics delivery service, recent drone delivery tests, current service trends, and requirements for drone delivery service will be examined.

• Journal of the Korean Home Economics Association
• /
• v.40 no.7
• /
• pp.83-100
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this study is to examine related variables to goods purchase by consumers using the home shopping of cable TV. For the purpose accomplishment, this study analyzed the variables which influence on the purchase by demographic variables, consumers'shopping propensity, perceived risk and benefit. The major findings are as follows; In the purchase of convenience goods, the variables which influence positively are sex, job(housewife), instantly impulse purchasing propensity, and diversity of goods information. On the other hand, the variables which influence negatively are risk of delivery & returned goods, and risk of quality. In the purchase of shopping goods, the variables which influence positively are state of marriage, job(nonspecialist), and diversity of goods information. On the other hand, the variables which influence negatively are pleasure of shopping-oriented, risk of delivery & returned goods, and risk of quality. In the purchase of specialty goods, the variables which influence positively are sex, income, convenience of time, and convenience of approach. On the other hand, the variables which influence negatively are pleasure of shopping-oriented, and risk of price & information restriction.