• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.37-69
• /
• 2002

This study sumed up general rules for measuring damages based on SGA, UCC, CISG, PICC legislated by on the base of English decision of Hadley v. Baxendale Concluding marks as follows : (1) General rule for measuring damages is a standard rule that is developed to place the aggrieved party in as good a position as if the party in breach performed the contract. (2) Damages may also be accompanied by other remedies (3) Damages has alternative character (4) Damages give the aggrieved party full compensation (5) It is enough for the aggrieved party simply to prove the non-performance for damages (6) Occurence of harm must be reasonably certain and a direct consequence of non-performance (7) while Rule for measuring damages an UCC is concrete CISG is comprehensive. (8) Although rule of UCC and CISG for damages measurement is a similar in many aspect but there are in expression and range of damage between them. (9) the result of this study will give researchers the opportunity to develope in depth and their report of research also contribute chance to perform business their effective oversea's trade

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.277-314
• /
• 2006

This article aims at analysing the reality of banks' liability resulting from the breach of contract on its part to keep the business secrecy with the supplier in the transferable credit, focusing on a English decision, Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3. In this case, the applicant, 'Econ', had purchased various varieties of pre-packed dog chews in bulk through 'Sam'(lst beneficiary) from 'PPLtd'(2nd beneficiary) in Thailand, using a transferable letter of credit issued by 'RBank'. 'Sam' charged a tremendous amount of mark-up on each transaction and it had not been disclosed to 'Econ', although the identity of 'PPLtd' was revealed to 'Econ' by various documents. However, 'RBank' made an unfortunate error to send an completion statement and other documents including 'PPLtd.'s invoice to 'Econ' instead of to 'Sam'. The effect of the Bank's error was to reveal to 'Econ' the substantial profit that 'Sam' was making on these transactions. CEO of 'Econ' was furious and, as a result, decided to cut 'Sam' out of its importing system and terminated their relationship. 'Sam' sued 'RBank' for damages to recover the loss of profits which could have been possibly made, if the information on the mark-up would not have been exposed to 'Econ'. The House of Lord held that 'RBank' was in breach of its duty of confidence, so 'Sam' was entitled to recover damages on a decreasing scale over 4 years, since there was no specific undertaking from the letter of credit.