• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2008

I have observed the validity of open-offer from a point of European contract law in comparison with International Trade Law in this paper. Generally we know that an offer is an expression of willingness bo be bound to the contract. In English law if there are no intention it will be considered such as circulation of price lists or catalogues. As for French law these activities could be considered as an offer. However German law is closer to English law as to an offer. A contract which does not ascertained price is open-price terms and it can be applied not only for general commercial contracts but also for franchise or for distributorship agreements especially in Europe. When open-price terms applied to reserve a exclusive right to the contract the validity of contract can be a serious matter between principals. In English law an offer must be sufficiently complete to be capable of acceptaqnce. English law does not require that price terms should be indicated on offer. English law allow a open-price terms in the contract. In French law a contract will be valid in the absense of a price which is either determined or objectively determinable. A price by the market price of similar products is not enough to be valid offer. It should be recognized and accepted objectively by third parties. French law require that price terms should be indicated on offer. Open-price terms are not enough to be an effective offer. However German law shows more flexible than French law. In German law if the price is not fixed in the contract there are four ways to determine it. The seller may determine the price by the time of deliver. By reason of thess backgrounds I have made comparison with European contract law and International trade law on the validity of open-price offer in this paper. It seems that we are not familiar with open-price terms although franchise contract or special terms of contract have been increased in these days. So I hope this paper will be helpful to show a new point of view.

• Journal of Multimedia Information System
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.87-96
• /
• 2020

Parents' desire for daily English practice for students and the urge for a etter English education has led to a demand for a highly qualified educational curriculum. In addition to getting deep-dive insights into parents' decision-making process, the increasingly important role of STEM education method has been proved in accordance with plenty of evidenced-based many of previous research. This study was conducted to examine the five independent factors affecting parents' intentions when designating English centers for their children, respectively named: Facility, Teachers, Brands, Social factors and Tuition. Through a preliminary approach, 235 samples were analyzed. Analysis of the sample responses reveals the importance level of five independent factors affecting Parents' intention to choose English centers in descending order: Facilities, Teachers, Brands, Tuition and Social factors. Furthermore, a positive correlation was found between STEM and Intention to choose English centers, indicating that whether the center applies STEM-related curriculum in English courses or not, in fact, has a significant impact on parents' decision. In terms of attitude towards STEM, further statistical tests revealed an interesting finding, which is the fact that how STEM affects Intention of parents is directly proportional to the Attitude towards STEM. With the help of SPSS 20 and AMOS 20, the SEM analysis was processed in order to draw conclusions about factors impacting Intentions to choose English centers. Combining with Multi-group analysis, the major role of STEM education has been assessed in relation to plenty of correlations. In light of recent major and massive growth of English teaching market in Vietnam, several suggestions and recommendations in terms of sustainable developments have been displayed in this research.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was developed and clarified in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance, and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2003

English law accepts the basic principle of freedom of contract that the parties should be free to agree on any terms that they like unless their agreement is illegal or otherwise contrary to public policy because it infringes some public interest. On the other hand, it has been limited for hundreds of years on the basis that certain contract terms, particularly in standard form, may alter a distribution of risks that the customer would reasonably intended. The alteration may often result from his simple ignorance caused by either lack of opportunity to become aware of clauses or inability to understand their full potential implications. In addition, it may also result from disparity in bargaining power which does not allow the customer to look after their own interests even if he is fully aware of the unacceptable clauses. In response to this problem, English law has employed both judicial and statutory intervention techniques to control unfair contract terms. This study describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms, particularly, in standard form, in order to provide legal advice to our sellers residing either in UK or in Korea who plan to enter into UK markets. It also attempts to explore any problem in the existing double legislations of UCTA and UTCCR and put forward future direction of English law in light of the Draft Unfair Terms Bill which was currently proposed by the Law Commissioners. The main concern of this paper will be confined to some of the various aspects of both judicial and statutory control of unfair contract terms in English law which may draw our attention in terms of domestic or international business sales.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2014

For a contract of insurance to be valid, the insured needs to have an insurable interest. This means that someone taking out insurance must stand to gain a benefit from the preservation of the subject matter of the insurance or to suffer a disadvantage should it be lost. Although the principle is simple, the detail is difficult. English Law Commission proposed some changes to provide certainty on the rule of insurable interest in LCCP 201. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals for reforming trends in English insurance contract law. The proposals on Law Commission in summarized as following. First, LC proposed to retain the requirement for insurable interest because it was thought to fulfil four useful functions. Secondly, LC proposes to repeal the Marine Insurance Act 1788 and the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act 1909 to confirm that the requirement of insurable interest applies to all forms of insurance. Thirdly, LC proposes to retain the provisions on insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act 1906. Finally, LC proposes to define insurable interest and thinks that full definition of insurable interest should remain flexible.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2003

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's remedies where the seller delivers defective goods of four legal systems; Directive, CISG, English law and Korean law. In light of threefold main purposes of this study, it firstly attempts to describe and analyze the remedy provisions of Directive in a comparative way in order to provide legal advice to the sellers who plans to enter into English consumer markets. It shows that the two tier remedial system under Directive is not much different from the other jurisdictions, except where the right of rescission under Directive is absolute in a sense that it does not require a certain degree of seriousness of defect. Secondly, the study compares the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and evaluates the rules in light of 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 proves the followings; (1) the reluctance and uncertainty in English law of ordering specific performance based on the discretionary power does not reflect the parties' preference because the order is either uncertain or rather negative where the purchase of substitute goods elsewhere is not a satisfactory solution in many cases; (2) the position in Korean law which has no limitation on the right to require substitute goods is likely unfair in commercial sales, but justified in consumer sales; (3) the right of termination or reduction under Directive which is subject to the applicability of the right to require repair or substitute goods seems to be contrary to the consumer's preference where the defective delivery destroys the basis of trust in the quality of the seller's performance; (4) the absolute right of termination under Directive and English law seems crucial in consumer sales because they are often inferior to commercial sellers in terms of information and bargaining power; (5) the right of reduction as a self-help remedy which is absent in English law emphasizes its usefulness. Thirdly, it finds that, where CISG is deemed to fail to unify different rules on the right to require specific performance between Civil and Common law, it is attempted once again in Directive and notwithstanding their hostility to awarding the right to require specific performance in English law, Regulations 2002 expressively stipulates such right.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.6
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper analyzes how to interpret the legal view of the precedents to the UK Insurance Act 2015, comparing it to the UK Marine Insurance Act (MIA) 1906 with a focus on the relationship between the duty of uberrimae fidei and the duty of disclosure. Furthermore, this study focuses on the judgment of the Korean Supreme Court in a case, that examined whether the legal nature of the duty of disclosure or duty of uberrimae fidei in insurance law can be considered as a matter related to the insurer's liability when the applicable terms of English law are incorporated under the insurance contract. Design/methodology - This paper belongs to the field of explanatory legal study, which aims to explain and test whether the choice of law is linked to the conditions that occur in the reality of judicial practice. The approach that is used toward this problem is the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves studying and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problem. Findings - Regarding the requirements and effects of breach of the duty of disclosure, if English law and the Korean Commercial Act are handled differently from each other and Korean law is recognized as the applicable law outside of the insurer's liability, it may be whether the insurer's immunity under English law is contrary to s.633 of the Korean Commercial Act. In considering the breach of the duty of disclosure as a matter of the insurer's liability, even if English law is applied as a governing law, the question of how to interpret the agreement of the governing law in this case may also be raised in the interpretation of Korean International Private Law in relation to the applicable law that applies to the rest of the matter, excluding the matters of liability. Originality/value - According to the Korean Supreme Court judgement under the governing law of the MIA 1906, the basis for recognizing the assured's pre-and post-contractual duty of disclosure is separate, and the only important matters to be notified by the assured after the conclusion of the insurance contract are those that are "relevant" and "material circumstances" that are "relevant" to the matter in question after the conclusion of the insurance contract.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.7
• /
• pp.167-184
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper analyzes all possible issues that need to be considered in case disputes occur with regard to force majeure in international commercial contracts through the comparative study between English and Korean during COVID-19. Design/methodology - This paper belongs to the field of explanatory legal study, which aims to explain and test whether the choice of law is linked to the conditions that occur in the reality of judicial practice. The juridical approach involves studying and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines, and legislation that are related to the problem. Findings - English law does not permit general economic impracticability to qualify as a valid force majeure event. If a party asserts that they were prevented from performing the contract, the courts will examine this strictly. Many commercial contracts in a broad range of sectors and industries are chosen by parties to be governed by English law. With COVID-19, there have been discussion of parties being released from performance as a result of force majeure. Meanwhile, under Korean law, a force majeure event should be unforeseeable and beyond a party's control. Since COVID-19 is a known event for future contracts, to avoid the risk that a similar situation in the future is deemed foreseeable and under a party's control, parties must ensure that such a risk is properly addressed in a contract. Therefore, it is necessary to have a new clause to cover a pandemic. Originality/value - In light of the ongoing unexpected and uncertain economic impacts COVID-19 is expected to bring to the world, it is anticipated that companies will experience an increased number of claims involving force majeure around the world, including English and Korea. As such, taking proactive steps to assess the applicable legal principles, including the concept of force majeure of contract, will help companies be prepared for the financial or legal implications of COVID-19. In this regard, it would be advisable for companies and businesses to take specific actions.