• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2008

This study primarily concerns the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(1980) in comparison with the Draft Principles of European Sales Law. It describes and analyzes the provisions of the CISG as to the seller's duty, focusing on main controversial issues among scholars in their application. It also attempts to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the Draft PESL and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intends to insert the CISG or the Draft PESL in their contract as a governing law. The comparative study particularly focuses on the following aspects; first, requirements for conformity with the contract which deals with the concept of conformity with the contract, contractual requirements agreed between contractual parties, and implied requirements otherwise not agreed between contractual parties, second, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract, third, exclusions of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.79-99
• /
• 2011

This study describes the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract. The purpose of this study is twofold: to analyze the seller's principal duty, comparing the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods(CISG) with Sale of Goods Act(SGA) and to provide legal and practical advice to contracting parties who consider CISG or SGA as a governing law. This paper first considers the requirements for the conformity with the contract, which means contractual requirements agreed between parties and implied requirements not agreed between parties. Following this, the exclusion of the seller's duty to deliver the goods required by the contract is described. Finally, this paper ends up giving contracting parties legal and practical advice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.31-48
• /
• 2012

If see CISG's passing of risk and altered regulations first, when sales contract accompanies transport of goods and seller does not have duty to deliver goods at particular place, when deliver to the first carter to send to purchaser according to sales contract risk passes to purchaser, and when there is duty that seller must deliver goods to carter at specification place, when goods are delivered to carter at same place, risk does not pass to purchaser. Second, risk about transporting goods passes to purchaser at signing a contract. But, when there is special assessment, risk passes to purchaser when goods are delivered to carter who publish document that embody contract of carriage. Nevertheless, it is loss if seller did not notify this truth to occasion purchaser who could knew loss or damage of goods or know justly at sales contract conclusion defamation danger seller of be burdensome. Third, seller has responsibility about damage or loss as long as hide in own artificiality or forbearance after risk passes to purchaser. Regulation about risk in Incoterms 2010 was separated into 11 condition, and move time of risk differs in angle condition. It is appeared that the substance handles relatively comprehensively because compare in Incoterms 2010 although it is because it becomes if it examines regulation about deliver and passing of risk of goods setting in CISG relatively concise. Also, segments that can become posibility of analysis controversy exist.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the review of buyer's remedy resulting from the breach of seller's duty in contracts for the international sale of goods focusing on UNCCIS, 1980 and the problems and suggestions of proper ideas for solving the problems. First problem on the buyer's remedy is related to the breach of seller's duty on del ivory of the contracted goods. When seller has failed to deliver the contracted goods to buyer within the stipulated periods, buyer can treat the contract as avoided and claim damages from seller. By the way, since UNCCIS does not provide any stipulation on the time of buyer's avoidance of the contract, buyer can delay the time of avoidance when the price of contracted goods is rising rapidly and enlarge the amount of damages, Since this stipulation is clearly unreasonable, proper solutions are required for UNCCIS. Second problem is related to the breach of seller's duty on deliver of goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packged in the manner required by the contract. When seller has failed to deliver goods which are confirm with the contract, buyer may have one of the two rights of damages and the price reduction according to UNCCIS provided that he does not choose the avoidance. But, since the character and position of the price reduction as a buyer's remedy are not sufficient solutions, more detailed review on this point is required. Third, Seller's duty to provide documents is very important for overseas trade, but UNCCIS does not provide any specific buyer's remedy in comparison with the other remedy and also does not provide any stipulation on the Letter of Credit which have important roles for a device of setting payment in overseas trade. This means that trade customs and practice have not sufficiently reflected in UNCCIS. As the problems mentioned above may decrease the evaluation of buyer's remedy in UNCCIS and, furthermore, that of UNCCIS itself, proper solutions on these points are needed.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 2017

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the seller's liability for non-conforming goods of four legal systems under the CISG and the CESL. A purpose of this study is to examine all the rules as to, first, the concept and the nature of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, second, the contents of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, third, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract and the cases where the seller is exempted from his liability for non-conforming goods. Another purpose is to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the CESL, and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to use one of those regimes in their contract as a governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

The parties in International Sale of Goods including Korean Firms Should note ; The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and CISG. The obligations mentioned in Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. The buyer has to take delivery at the respective place within a reasonable period after this communication since he cannot be required to take delivery immediately. Refusing to take delivery in case of delay not constituting a ground for avoiding the contract makes no sense, since this would lead to even later delivery. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. International sales contracts frequently prescribe that the buyer has to act in advance, that is before the seller starts the process of delivery. Such acts may be either advance payments or the procurement of securities for payment as letters of credit guarantees. On the other hand, The seller deliver the goods hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and CISG. The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgement. The buyer may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. The seller may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the buyer to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2013

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.135-178
• /
• 2014

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) sets the standards of good faith in a commercial transaction for the sale of goods. With every sales contract, there is an implied obligation for both the seller and the buyer to negotiate the contract and perform under the terms of the contract in good faith. The agreement between both parties and the customs in the industry determine how the good faith standard should be applied to a particular transaction. Generally, the meaning of good faith, though always based on honesty, may vary depending on the specific context in which it is used. A person is said to buy in good faith when he or she holds an honest belief in his or her right or title to the property and has no knowledge or reason to know of any defect in the title. In section 1-201 of the UCC good faith is defined generally as "honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned." Article 2 of the UCC says "good faith in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade." The sales contract will generally determine which party is required to perform first. This provision helps to determine if the buyer or the seller is in breach of the agreement due to failing to perform as stated by the contract. Either the seller must deliver the items before the buyer is required to accept and pay or the buyer must pay for the items before the seller has the duty to act in good faith and deliver the items in a reasonable manner. If the contract does not specifically define who is required to perform, industry customs and fair trade may determine what is acceptable for the transaction. Under the UCC, the buyer is required to pay for the goods when they are delivered, unless the contract states otherwise. Therefore, the UCC imposes an obligation of good faith on the performance of every contract or duty under its purview. The law also generally requires good faith of fiduciaries and agents acting on behalf of their principals. This article discusses problems of the principles of good faith under the UCC. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of good faith issues for Korean law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.251-293
• /
• 2002

The study is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers defective goods or documents of three legal systems; the CISG, English law and Korean law. The purposes underlying this study are twofold. The first is to clarify the current position as to the right of withholding performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective goods or documents in Korean law, CISG and English law so that it may assist the parties in drafting the buyer's right to withhold performance in their own contract. The second is to compare the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and to evaluate the rules in light of the practical functions and benefits of the right to withhold performance and the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It shows that each jurisdiction does not have any provision or case law specifically dealing with the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers the goods which are defective in terms of quality or quantity. The absence of such provision or case in each jurisdiction has resulted in either disputes or uncertainty. However, the study executed in light of the primary functions and benefits of the right in practice and the discipline of comparative law reveals that, first, the view in English law which is against recognizing the right may not be justified when one considers the practical importance of having the right and the position taken by the CISG as a well developed and modernized law, second, the view in Korean law which argues that the principle of specific goods dogma on which it is based is extended even to substitutable or repairable goods cannot be also justified on the ground of one's ordinary expectation and the position under the CISG and English law which imposes a contractual duty to deliver non-defective goods on the seller insofar as the buyer's payment is deemed to be made in exchange for the seller's delivery of non-defective goods and they are substitutable or repairable. Regarding the right to withhold performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective documents, the study shows that the relatively detailed rules in English law may be utilized as a guideline to fill the gap in the CISG and Korean law in terms of the practicability and appropriateness to govern documentary sales. Furthermore, it is found that the position in English law which confers on the buyer the right to withhold performance for a trivial defect in documents may be unreasonable in terms of one's need to enable justice to be done in individual cases.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.1
• /
• pp.193-222
• /
• 1989

The purpose of this study is to review the rights and duties of cargo owners, the party to the contract of international carriage of goods by air under the Warsaw Convention System and the IATA conditions. It is generally known that air freight is the most-cost mode of transportation. However, should there be considerations of total distribution cost, the use of air freight leads exporters to be advantageous in physical distribution. The Warsaw Convention System defined and limited the rights and duties of cargo owners and air carriers paticipating in the international carriage of goods, but it does not regulate every aspect of air transportation. Therefore, the unregulated parts are governed by national laws and by individual contracts of carriage. The International Air Transport Association(lATA), a worldwide organization of airlines, has formulated model conditions of contract for the carriage of cargo. These models are not uniformly followed but they serve as a basis for many of the individual standard form of contracts prepared by air carriers. The contract of air carriage of goods is a contract of adhesion, 'the consignor recognizing and accepting the conditions laid down by the carrier'. There are consignors and carriers as the parties to the contract of international carriage of goods. In addition to his basic right, implied in Warsaw Convention Article 18 and 19, to require devery of the goods in good condition and at the date agreed upon, the consignor has the right to dispose the goods in the course of the journey up to the moment when the consignee is entitled to require delivery. If it is impossible to carry out the orders of the consignor, the carrier must so inform him forthwith. The right conferred on the consignor ceases at the moment when that of the consignee begins in accordance with Warsaw Convention Article 13. Nevertheless, if the consignee declines to accept the air waybill or the goods, or if he cannot be communicated with, the consignor resumes his right of disposition. Unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the goods arrive. The consignee is entitled, on arrival of the goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the air waybill and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the air waybill. The air waybill is supposed to be made out by the consignor. If the carrier makes it out, he is deemed, subject to proof to the contrary, to have done so on behalf of the consignor, whether there is one air waybill or several, each must be made out in three original parts. The first is for the carrier, the second is for the consignee, and the the third is handed to the consignor when the shipment has been accepted. The consignor is responsible for the correctness of the particulars and statement concerning the cargo appearing in the air waybill. Each of the original parts of the air waybill has evidential value and possession of his part is a condition for the exercise by the consignor or consignee of his rights under the contract of carriage. Hague Protocol set forth in Article 9 that nothing in this. Convention prevents the issue of a negotiable air waybill, but Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 deleted this article. All charges applicable to a shipment are payable in cash at the time of acceptance thereof by the carrier in case of a prepaid shipment or at the time of delivery thereof by the carrier in case of a collect shipment. The carrier shall have lien the cargo for unpaid charges and, in the event of non-payment thereof, shall have the right to dispose of the cargo at public or private sale and pay itself out of the proceeds of such sale any and all such amounts. In conclusion, the Warsaw Convention System has the character of ambiguity in various respects, not only in the part of the forms of documents but also in conditions of contract. Accordingly, the following propositions might be considered: (1) If the carrier does not obey the orders of the consignor for the disposition of the goods without proper reasons, he will be liable strictly for any damage which may be caused thereby to the cargo owner. The special agreement and carrier's conditions of carriage which limit unreasonably the consignor's right of disposition of the goods will be nullified. (2) The instrument of the Warsaw Convention System which is not yet in force(Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4) would considerably simplfy the processing and keeping of computerized records of the carriage. Until this instrument enters into force, the airlines will be faced with practical problems preventing them to substitute computerized data processing techniques for the formal issuance of the documents. Accordingly, Montreal Additional Protocol No. 4 should become effective as soon as posisble. From a practical point of view in the international trade, the issuance of negotiable air waybill should be permitted for the security of the bank.