• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2010

According to the commercial law in Korea, a marine cargo insurance contractor (policyholder, insured person, agent) has the duty to disclose risks before establishing an insurance contract and the obligation to notify changes in risks after before establishing the contract. Marine cargo insurance policy clauses include one about the obligation to notify changes in risks. This clause assumes that an insurance contract should be implemented according to what has been answered to the important questions asked by the insurer in connection with the insurant's duty to disclose before establishing an insurance contract, and it stipulates that, if any change in what has been disclosed should be notified to the insurer since it is regarded as a change in risks. Neglecting the obligation to notify may lead to the termination of the appropriate insurance contract by the insurer. The problems here concern the clauses about changes in risks and about the obligation to notify. The problems are like these. Can it be that the circumstances which might be seen in the past as changes in risks according to the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses stipulated long ago are considered as such still today? And a marine cargo insurance policy till valid when changes in risks have not been properly notified by the original discloser of risks to the insured who currently holds the marine cargo insurance policy, which, unlike other insurance policies, is a marketable security? In Korea, the commercial law has a clause the obligation to notify changes in risks established based on the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses. In this regard, this study aims to consider if the clause still valid today or not and, if not, to propose alternatives to the clauses.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.83-100
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to provide the most accurate analysis possible regarding the buyer's duty to examine goods and give notice, or the like, of non-conformity to the seller under Belgian law in comparison with the CISG and CESL. Even though Belgium is the capital of the Europe Union, most of its laws remain untranslated in English. Therefore, this study may offer key insights into the specificities of Belgian law, which while being derived from the French Napoleon Code has its own practices coded into its Case Law. It also makes a comparison with the new CESL and CISG in order to evaluate their respective influence on national law and other infructuous attempts to harmonize Belgian law for the internal European market. Evaluating the differences of each system in the spirit of comparative law may be a good basis for the development of laws in each jurisdiction.

• Information Systems Review
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.1-15
• /
• 2006

Schedule Management for outside duty personnels and their groups is fairly difficult since they spend most of their time on working outside individually rather than inside office. Everytime when schedule change for personnels or their groups is needed, it is necessary to call every personnel in order to notify the schedule change. It would be much easier to handle the schedule management problem if outside duty personnels are able to download schedule of their groups(and, upload their schedule) using their mobile communication devices such as PDAs. In this paper, using a data synchronization protocol in mobile communication environments, a schedule management system for outside duty personnels is designed and implemented. Data synchronization in mobile communication environments is a process of maintaining consistency between data stored in mobile devices and data stored in a (central) server at office. In other words, using SyncML data synchronization protocol proposed by OMA(Open Mobile Alliance) as an open standard for data synchronization in mobile communication environments, a schedule management system for outside duty personnels which allows them to check schedule of their groups and to notify their schedule to their groups at anytime anyplace is designed and implemented.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.7 no.12
• /
• pp.105-113
• /
• 2007

Company without voluntary agreement(nature) of police, violation on the reason of company, violation on identification state, Violations on duties to notify the party's family members and to allow the party have a chance to be notified. Violation on duty to notify the party to have the right to call an investigation authority, Violation on the time of company, Violation on the place of company, and Violation on using force such as compulsory during the process of voluntary company in state of illegal voluntary company. It also has to decide whether the evidences are illegal and eliminated by these two requisites even in probative value and evidence admissibility on confession of the party under the illegal voluntary company.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.27-43
• /
• 2009

This article explored the customers protection regulations in electronic payment system by Article 4A of the UCC and EFTA of 1978 and by Electronic Financial Transaction Act of Korea. Both Korea and America have various regulations to protect concerned parties(customers). For examples, the errors of payment order, money-back guarantee, and unauthorized payment order etc. First, this Article focuses on the allocation of risk of loss caused by ambiguous term in payment orders that do not express the subjective intention of the senders. Second, most rights and obligations created by Article 4A of America can be varied with the agreement of affected parties. But there are some exceptions. The exceptions include the money-back guarantee. So Receiving bank have to pay to originator the ordered money included interest. However, Korea also has money-back guarantee but bank do not pay interest to sender. Lastly, Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 and Regulation E has US$ 50 regulation in order to protect customers on the unauthorized payment order. Article 4A imposes duty to detect unauthorized payment orders to originator in relation to the establishment of commercially reasonable security procedure, while Korean law imposes the duty to notify the bank in order to decrease the loss resulted from unauthorized payment order.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.16
• /
• pp.7-34
• /
• 2001

This Study analyzes the fact that whether or not, the applicant, by failing to object promptly to the facial discrepancies of the presented documents and to return those documents to the issuing bank, has waived his right to sue for breach of the Application agreement based on the recent Korea-US Case law. Some commentators claim that an applicant has a duty to notify the issuing bank within a reasonable time after receiving the documents that they do not comply with the letter of credit requirements and to return those documents to the issuing bank, and also suggest that a failure to do so result in a waiver of discrepancies that operates as a matter of law. But such decisions make little sense in letter of credit transaction. Unless otherwise agreed, Applicant agreement does not require that the applicant notify the issuing bank of any facial discrepancies of the documents or return those documents. Moreover there is no support in the body of law, i.e., UCP 500 or the Revised UCC Article 5, for an automatic waiver or preclusion arising from the applicant's failure to object promptly. In addition, beyond the lack of authority to support an automatic waiver arising from the applicant's failure to object and return the documents, in a letter of credit transaction the issuing bank is the only party charged with the duty of scrutinizing documents. Therefore, if there are discrepancies, it is the bank that should have to seek an express waiver from the applicant ; the issuing bank should not avoid responsibility for failing to notice discrepancies because the applicant was slow to scrutinize the documents closely or because the applicant failed to inform the issuing bank of such discrepancies. Requiring that applicants inspect documents independently defeats the purpose of retaining the issuing bank, erodes the bank's responsibility to perform its role diligently, and may result in the bank avoiding liability despite negligent payment. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the Application agreement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies and return the documents. This approach will ensure the continued wide-spread use of documentary credit as a reliable payment mechanism.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.23 no.7
• /
• pp.881-888
• /
• 2019

Dangerous cargo in maritime transportation is increasing in international trade. The types and forms of dangerous cargo are very diverse, complex, and the scope is expanding widely. For this reason, it is increase risk of accident threatens the safety of ships and other cargoes, as well as serious damage. Carriers' require special care and handling of dangerous cargo and have a duty of care for safe transport. The shipper is obliged to notify the carrier of the nature and characteristics of the dangerous cargo prior to loading on the ship, the responsibility of the carrier varies depending on the notification or not. This study compares and analyzes the concept and classification of dangerous cargoes, the provisions of the Hague rules, Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules about Carriers' Dangerous Cargo Liability Regulations, after reviewing case studies. We intend to provide information to dangerous cargo handling, the carrier.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2006

This paper intends to describe the carrier's duty for the delivery of international air cargo and the carrier's liability for the illegal delivery of cargo under the Montreal Convention, lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo and judicial precedents. Under the Article 13 of Montreal Convention, the consignee is entitled, on arrival of the cargo at the place of destination, to require the carrier to deliver the cargo to it, on payment of the charge due and on complying with the conditions of carriage. And unless it is otherwise agreed, it is the duty of the carrier to give notice to the consignee as soon as the cargo arrives. Under the Article 18 of Montreal Convention, the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or less of or damage to, cargo upon condition only that the event which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. And the carriage by air comprises by the period during which the cargo is in the carriage of the carrier. Under the Article 11 of lATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, carrier is liable to shipper, consignee of any other person for damage sustained in the event of destruction of loss of, or damage to, or delay in the carriage of cargo only if the occurrence which caused to the damage so sustained took place during the carriage as defined under Article 1. According to the precedent of Korean Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the airway bill by the bonded warehouse operator because the freight forwarder did not designate the bonded warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the bonded warehouse operator. In conclusion, the carrier or freight forwarder should pay always attention the movement and condition of the cargo not to be liable for the illegal delivery of cargo.