• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• 제17권2호
• /
• pp.49-81
• /
• 2007

Research in the IS (Information Systems) outsourcing has focused on the importance of legal contracts and partnerships between vendors and clients. Without detailed legal contracts, there is no guarantee that an outsourcing vendor would not indulge in self-serving behavior. In addition, partnerships can supplement legal contracts in managing the relationship between clients and vendors legal contracts by itself cannot deal with all the complexity and ambiguity involved with IS outsourcing relationships. In this paper, we introduce a psychological contract (between client and vendor) as an important variable for IS outsourcing success. A psychological contract refers to individual's mental beliefs about his or her mutual obligations in a contractual relationship (Rousseau, 1995). A psychological contract emerges when one party believes that a promise of future returns has been made, a contribution has been given, and thus, an obligation has been created to provide future benefits (Rousseau, 1989). An employmentpsychological contract, which is a widespread concept in psychology, refers to employer and employee expectations of the employment relationship, i.e. mutual obligations, values, expectations and aspirations that operate over and above the formal contract of employment (Smithson and Lewis, 2003). Similar to the psychological contract between an employer and employee, IS outsourcing involves a contract and a set of mutual obligations between client and vendor (Ho et al., 2003). Given the lack of prior research on psychological contracts in the IS outsourcing context, we extend such studies and give insights through investigating the role of psychological contracts between client and vendor. Psychological contract theory offers highly relevant and sound theoretical lens for studying IS outsourcing management because of its six distinctive principles: (1) it focuses on mutual (rather than one-sided) obligations between contractual parties, (2) it's more comprehensive than the concept of legal contract, (3) it's an individual-level construct, (4) it changes over time, (5) it affects organizational behaviors, and (6) it's susceptible to organizational factors (Koh et al., 2004; Rousseau, 1996; Coyle-Shapiro, 2000). The aim of this paper is to put the concept, psychological contract commitment (PCC), under the spotlight, by finding out its mediating effects between legal contracts/partnerships and IS outsourcing success. Our interest is in the psychological contract commitment (PCC) or commitment to psychological contracts, which is the extent to which a partner consistently and deeply concerns with what the counter-party believes as obligations during the IS project. The basic premise for the hypothesized relationship between PCC and success is that for outsourcing success, client and vendor should continually commit to mutual obligations in which both parties believe, rather than to only explicit obligations. The psychological contract commitment playsa pivotal role in evaluating a counter-party because it reflects what one party really expects from the other. If one party consistently shows high commitment to psychological contracts, the other party would evaluate it positively. This will increase positive reciprocation efforts of the other party, thus leading to successful outsourcing outcomes (McNeeley and Meglino, 1994). We have used matched sample data for this research. We have collected three responses from each set of a client and a vendor firm: a project manager of the client firm, a project member from the vendor firm with whom the project manager cooperated, and an end-user of the client company who actually used the outsourced information systems. Special caution was given to the data collection process to avoid any bias in responses. We first sent three types of questionnaires (A, Band C) to each project manager of the client firm, asking him/her to answer the first type of questionnaires (A).

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2000

The International Chamber of Commerce published the millennium edition of its standard trade definitions, Incoterms 2000. Incoterms are a basic reference for sales contracts, in constant daily use throughout the world. The new version will make it easier for traders to do business in the new century, despite the growing volume and complexity of international transactions. Since Incoterms were first published in 1936, they have been updated six times. They precisely define the responsibilities of buyer and seller and are recognized as the international standard by customs authorities and courts in all the main trading nations. It is important for traders to incorporate the correct Incoterms into their international contracts to avoid unnecessary legal problems. Courts may otherwise interpret trade terms according to often widely divergent national laws and unless the use of Incoterms is specified, expensive legal disputes can arise. Division of costs is a most important element in every contract of sale. The parties must know not only who does what but also how costs resulting therefrom should be divided between them. In most cases the fact that a party must do something means that he must also bear the resulting costs, unless otherwise agreed. But there are many exceptions to this principle and uncertainties arise, particularly with respect to services performed by other parties. Also, difficulties arise with respect to the division of costs whenever additional costs are caused by unexpected events, such as hindrances causing a ship to deviate or to remain in a seaport longer than expected. The main principle of the division of costs is clear enough: the seller has to pay costs necessary for the goods to reach the agreed point of delivery, and the buyer has to pay any further costs after that point. But as noted, it is not always easy to implement this principle in practice, since the detailed distribution of functions under the various trade terms is not and cannot be fully defined in Incoterms. Instead, failing precise stipulations in the contract of sale, guidance must be sought from other criteria such as commercial practices used earlier by the same parties or the custom of trade.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.125-145
• /
• 2017

Where an insurer has unreasonably refused to pay a claim or paid it after unreasonably delay, the existing law in England does not provide a remedy for the insured. Accordingly, the insured is not entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result of the insurer's unreasonable delay. This legal position differs from the law in Scotland and most major common law jurisdictions. LC thought that the legal position in England is anomalous and out of step with general contractual principles. LC considered that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment of claim, and, therefore, recommended a statutory implied term in every insurance that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time and breach of that term should give rise to contractual remedies, including damages. More detailed recommendations of LC are as followings. First, it should be an implied term of every insurance contract that, where an insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay sums due within a reasonable time. Secondly, a reasonable time should always include a reasonable time for investigating and assessing a claim. Although a reasonable time will depend on all the relevant circumstances, for example, the following things may need to be taken into account, that is, (1) the type of insurance, (2) the size and complexity of the claim, (3) compliance with any relevant statutory rules or guidance, and (4) factors outside the insurer's control. Thirdly, if the insurer can show that it had reasonable grounds for disputing the claim(whether as to pay or not, or the amount payable), the insurer does not breach the obligation to pay within a reasonable time merely by failing to pay the claim while the dispute is continuing. In those circumstances, the conduct of the insurer in handling the dispute may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the obligation was breached and, if so, when. Fourthly, Normal contractual remedies for breach of contract should be available for breach of the implied term to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Finally, In non-consumer insurance contracts, the insurer should be permitted to exclude or limit its liability for breach of the obligation to pay sums due within a reasonable time, unless such breach was deliberate or reckless, and such an insurer's right to contract out will be subject to satisfying the transparency requirements.

• 한국건축시공학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국프랜차이즈경영연구
• /
• 제13권4호
• /
• pp.23-37
• /
• 2022

Purpose: The Korean franchise market has undergone drastic growth in recent years. Followed by expansion of franchise business types, relevant legal matters have diversified. Compared to conventional economic laws that focused on resolving problems related to unfair transactions between franchisors and franchisees, more diverse labor laws have emerged recently due to governance and economic dependencies of franchise structure. However, it was found that the business environment of franchisees and working conditions of franchisee employees have not changed accordingly due to the unique structure of franchise business. Though franchisees are entrepreneurs independent from franchisors, they are still under franchising contract with the franchisors. For instance, employees of franchisees have been exposed to malpractices in regard to pay, time, and other working conditions. These malpractices may show the ineffectiveness of current labor laws. Labor management is an important issue for sustainability of franchise businesses. Negative publicity of franchises generated from violating relevant labor laws may have significant negative impact on overall image of franchised brands. However, franchisors should not hold franchisees fully responsible for legal violations in terms of labor management but strive to prevent relevant risks. Thus, the recent amendment in labor law related to increased minimum wage and reduced worktime have called for more attention to effectively implementing the law. Research design, data, and methodology: This study was conducted through a review of franchise-related laws and various institutions and policies. Results: It is further needed for all parties, including franchisors, franchisees, and franchisee employees, to take collaborative actions to improve working conditions of franchisees. Therefore, this study aims to propose appropriate and effective response plans toward recent changes in the Minimum Wage Act, while strengthening sustainability of franchisors, franchisees, and their employees. Conclusions: The proposal mainly contains plans regarding profit-related aids and profit sharing/cost reduction strategies for franchisees, as well as collective bargaining in the franchisor-franchisee relation. More detailed suggestions are included. Conclusions: This proposal may help franchisors and policymakers develop business plans and policies in improving business conditions of franchisees and working conditions of franchisee employees.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.143-163
• /
• 2018

임플란트 시술은 소위 상업화된 의료에 속하고 상대적으로 시술자체가 단순 명료하며 그 시술이 성공가능성은 거의 100%에 달한다. 또한 환자에게 건강을 위한 불가피한 수단이기 보다는 선택적 수단의 의미를 지니는바 자기결정권의 보호를 위한 설명의무의 중요성이 특히 강조되기도 한다. 이러한 특성에 비추어 임플란트 시술 계약에 대하여는 도급의 성격이 강조되어 경우에 따라서는 식립 자체의 실패만으로도 의사의 과실이 존재한다고 할 수 있을 것이다. 또한 임플란트 시술은 상업화된 의료로서 단순 명료한 의료행위인바 과실여부는 직업적 평균인이 아닌 일반인의 상식을 기준으로 판단되어야 할 것이므로, 임플란트 시술 후 악결과가 발생한 환자는 예를 들어, 시술 중 과도한 통증과 출혈이 발생하였음에도 의사가 별 다른 조치를 취하지 않았다는 등을 입증하면 충분하고 그 전문가의 입장에서 의료행위가 적절치 못하였다는 점까지 밝혀야 하는 것은 아니다. 한편, 임플란트 의료과오 판결들을 살펴보건대 법원은 명시적으로 임플란트 시술계약을 도급이라고 판단하고 있지는 않더라도, 식립 자체의 성공여부로 의사의 과실을 판단하고 있어 일의 완성을 목적으로 하는 도급계약과 유사한 특성을 어느 정도 인정하는 듯 보인다. 또한 제시하고 있는 의료과실의 구체적 내용들에 비추어 의료과실의 판단도 일반인의 상식에 기초한 것으로 보인다.

• 한국철도학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국철도학회 2008년도 춘계학술대회 논문집
• /
• pp.1479-1485
• /
• 2008

본 논문은 철도차량분야에 적용할 소프트웨어 Escrow의 상세 적용 절차에 대하여 논의하고자 한다. 철도차량 발주자는 차량의 소프트웨어 포함 장치에 대한 하자보증 기간(warranty period) 이후의 소프트웨어 변경 및 유지보수성 확보를 위하여 소스코드, 핵심적인 기술 원천정보 등을 요구하고 있다. 한편, 소프트웨어 개발 업체는 소스코드 등이 업체의 지적 재산권에 해당하는 사안이기 때문에 시행청의 요구사항을 만족하기 어려운 실정이다. 그러므로, 주 계약자인 철도차량 제작자는 소프트웨어 개발자와 사용자 간의 다른 입장을 조율하기 위하여, 소프트웨어 Escrow 서비스 제도를 도입해야 할 필요성이 있다. 소프트웨어 Escrow는 소프트웨어 Escrow 패키지(소프트웨어 소스코드, 소프트웨어 개발 툴, 빌드 프로세스, 독점권을 가진 정보, 저작권 등)의 거래 시, Escrow 계약 문서에 대한 서명을 통한 Escrow 계약 조건을 상호 합의한 후 신뢰성 있는 제3의 기관에 관련 기술 자료 등을 예치해 두는 양자 간 상생협력을 위한 제도이다. 본 논문에서는 다음의 Escrow 진행 절차에 대한 상세 내역을 연구하고, 향후 프로젝트 적용 방안을 제안하고자 한다.

• 한국컴퓨터정보학회논문지
• /
• 제17권12호
• /
• pp.241-249
• /
• 2012

현재 정보통신의 비약적인 발전은 의료서비스 전달체계에서도 큰 변화와 진전을 야기하고 있으며 세계적으로 점차 확대되어가고 있는 추세이다. 이는 의료정보화라는 이름으로 환자에게는 질병의 진단, 치료에 있어서 보다 신속, 세밀하고 정확히 판단할 수 있게 하여 수준 높은 보건의료서비스를 제공하는 한편 의료기관 및 관련기관은 업무의 효율성을높여가고 있다. 그 중 원격의료는 의료기관의 방문 없이 대기시간의 단축, 일률적인 고도의 의료수준을 기대할 수 있는 등의 장점이 있는 제도이다. 특히 장소와 시간에 구애받지 않고 방대한 의학에 관한 정보접근성이 높아질 수 있다는 점이다. 그러나 현대 과학 기술의 발달의 속도에 비해 운용상의 제반 규정과 마인드가 부족한 것이 현실이다. 현행 우리 의료법에서는 원격의료를 규정하고는 있으나 그 내부적 관계에 따르는 세부적인 법률관계의 부재 및 현장에서 이루어지는 의료행위가 아닌 정보통신망을 이용한 비대면접촉에 의한 특수한 형태라는 측면에서 제도적, 시설적, 환경적 제약이 있음을 부인할 수 없다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 현행 원격의료의 발전 잠재 가능성이 무한함을 전제로 법적 문제점 및 개선점을 고찰해보고 이를 통한 원격의료를 활성화할 수 있는 활로를 모색하고자 한다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권2호
• /
• pp.95-126
• /
• 2009

One of the controversial issues in investor-state investment arbitration is the interpretation of "umbrella clause" that is found in most BIT and FTAs. This treaty clause requires on Contracting State of treaty to observe all investment obligations entered into with foreign investors from the other Contracting State. This clause did not receive in-depth attention until SGS v. Pakistan and SGS v. Philippines cases produced starkly different conclusions on the relations about treaty-based jurisdiction and contract-based jurisdiction. More recent decisions by other arbitral tribunals continue to show different approaches in their interpretation of umbrella clauses. Following the SGS v. Philippines decision, some recent decisions understand that all contracts are covered by umbrella clause, for example, in Siemens A.G. v. Argentina, LG&E Energy Corp. v. Argentina, Sempra Energy Int'l v. Argentina and Enron Corp. V. Argentina. However, other recent decisions have found a different approach that only certain kinds of public contracts are covered by umbrella clauses, for example, in El Paso Energy Int'l Co. v. Argentina, Pan American Energy LLC v. Argentina and CMS Gas Transmission Co. v. Argentina. With relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, most of tribunals have the position that the contractual remedy should not affect the jurisdiction of BIT tribunal. Even some tribunals considered that there is no need to exhaust contract remedies before bringing BIT arbitration, provoking suspicion of the validity of sanctity of contract in front of treaty obligation. The decision of the Annulment Committee In CMS case in 2007 was an extraordinarily surprising one and poured oil on the debate. The Committee composed of the three respected international lawyers, Gilbert Guillaume and Nabil Elaraby, both from the ICJ, and professor James Crawford, the Rapportuer of the International Law Commission on the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, observed that the arbitral tribunal made critical errors of law, however, noting that it has limited power to review and overturn the award. The position of the Committee was a direct attack on ICSID system showing as an internal recognition of ICSID itself that the current system of investor-state arbitration is problematic. States are coming to limit the scope of umbrella clauses. For example, the 2004 U.S. Model BIT detailed definition of the type of contracts for which breach of contract claims may be submitted to arbitration, to increase certainty and predictability. Latin American countries, in particular, Argentina, are feeling collectively victims of these pro-investor interpretations of the ICSID tribunals. In fact, BIT between developed and developing countries are negotiated to protect foreign investment from developing countries. This general characteristic of BIT reflects naturally on the provisions making them extremely protective for foreign investors. Naturally, developing countries seek to interpret restrictively BIT provisions, whereas developed countries try to interpret more expansively. As most of cases arising out of alleged violation of BIT are administered in the ICSID, a forum under the auspices of the World Bank, these Latin American countries have been raising the legitimacy deficit of the ICSID. The Argentine cases have been provoking many legal issues of international law, predicting crisis almost coming in actual investor-state arbitration system. Some Latin American countries, such as Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina, already showed their dissatisfaction with the ICSID system considering withdrawing from it to minimize the eventual investor-state dispute. Thus the disagreement over umbrella clauses in their interpretation is becoming interpreted as an historical reflection on the continued tension between developing and developed countries on foreign investment. There is an academic and political discussion on the possible return of the Calvo Doctrine in Latin America. The paper will comment on these problems related to the interpretation of umbrella clause. The paper analyses ICSID cases involving principally Latin American countries to identify the critical legal issues arising between developing and developed countries. And the paper discusses alternatives in improving actual investor-State investment arbitration; inter alia, the introduction of an appellate system and treaty interpretation rules.