• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2021

Recent Discussions on Third-Party Funding (TPF) in the forums of UNCITRAL, ICSID, and ICC are making different levels of progress towards finalizing the rules. However, they also have similarities in dealing with legal issues related to TPF, such as definitions, disclosure, allocation of costs, and security for costs. International treaty tribunals have dealt with TPF issues, too. When it comes to the standing of funded claimants, the tribunal in Ambiente v. Argentina did not accept the argument that claimants were controlled by the TPF provider. Concerning the scope of the disclosure, the tribunal in Tennant v. Canada ordered the disclosure of the TPF arrangement. As for the allocation of costs, the tribunal in Kardassopoulos v. Georgia noted that there is no reason why a TPF agreement should be treated differently than an insurance contract. Regarding the security for costs, the tribunal in South American Silver v. Bolivia considered the mere existence of a third-party funder as not an exclusive factor to determine costs in the earlier stage of the proceedings. Lastly, relating to TPF as a ground for annulment, the tribunal in Teinver v. Argentina declined the respondent's argument that the TPF agreement was the vehicle of fraud.

• East Asian Journal of Business Economics (EAJBE)
• /
• v.11 no.4
• /
• pp.29-39
• /
• 2023

Purpose - Disputes arising from documentary letter of credit transactions are not decreasing. According to a statistical data from the ICC, 60-70% of letters of credit in use around the world, so, Incoterms rule specifically defines the bill of lading review procedure. Research design, data, and methodology - The refusal due to large or small inconsistencies in terms and conditions when first presenting documents with bill of lading. First of all, confusion was caused by the ambiguous regulation as the bill of lading is a document that serves as evidence of the transportation contract. Result - Bill of lading indicates the rights to the cargo as well as a bill of lading, which is evidence of a transportation contract concluded between carriers, is a document that allows a carrier to receive or ship cargo and ship it by sea. It is a security that promises to be delivered through transportation to the rightful holder of the bill of lading. Conclusion - Because of its importance, the Uniform customs practices for Letters of Credit stipulate acceptance requirements for transport documents, including bills of lading. In addition, the International Standard Banking Practices (ISBP) established by the International Chamber of Commerce also provide supplementary provisions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

Seller's obligation on the Delivery of Goods and Handing over the Documents are key elements in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) has been entered into force on 1 January 1988 to create international certainty and uniformity in the law and to govern issues that arise in an international sale of goods transaction. The Incoterms were first published by the ICC in 1936 and were most recently revised in 2010. Incoterms 2010 are entering into force on 1 January 2011. The Incoterms focus on the seller's delivery obligations and reflect the principle that the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods. This study highlights basic rules covering seller's obligation of delivery of goods and handing over the documents under the Incoterms 2010 and the United Nations Convention and Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In the second chapter, this study will provide analyses and compare these two legal systems in relation to the basic rules governing delivery of goods and passing of risks in contract of sale. This chapter evaluates the meaning of Article 31 and Article 67(1) and FOB, CFR, CIF & FCA, CPT, CIP terms of Incoterms 2010. Chapter Three will focus on handing over the documents. Article 30 CISG imposes the seller's primary obligations to deliver the goods and to hand over documents relating to them. Article 34 CISG supplements the seller's obligation in relation to documents by providing that the seller must hand over documents relating to the goods. In contrast, Article 58(1) CISG imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay only when it has received the goods or documents controlling their disposition. I reviewed only some of the documents relating to the goods are documents controlling their disposition. This chapter considers the meaning of the phrase "documents that control the disposition of the goods and do not control disposition of the goods." Finally, the fourth chapter will assess the meaning of rules of CISG and Incoterms 2010.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-97
• /
• 2014

This study is about the availability of Chinese internal arbitration institutions by Korean invested companies. Generally, Chinese internal arbitration institutions lack independence from government. However, because parties seeking an arbitration award have ways to get neutrality from internal arbitration institutions that guarantee party autonomy, these Korean companies can use Chinese internal arbitration institutions to resolve disputes in China. Special attention should be given to the following. First, because Korean companies invested in China are legally in the same position as Chinese companies, unless foreign-related factors intervene, when disputes occur with Chinese companies or individuals, the disputes correspond to internal dispute, and when it comes to choosing the arbitration institution, these Korean companies must choose either a Chinese internal arbitration institution or foreign-related arbitration institution. Second, most Chinese internal arbitration institutions still lack independence from government, which can influence the fairness of arbitration in the future. Therefore, Korean companies invested in China should think about alternative ways to get a minimum impartiality in arbitration cases. Third, the parties are allowed to choose arbitration rules freely in Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou arbitration commissions. Therefore, in arbitration cases, the parties can get impartiality by choosing arbitrators according to the arbitration rules which they agree on, or by choosing partially modified arbitration rules of those arbitration commissions. Fourth, in order to get an impartial arbitration award from Chinese internal arbitration institutions in China, it is important for Korean lawyers or arbitration experts -- fluent in Chinese -- to be registered in the List of Arbitrators of Chinese internal arbitration institution by way of signing a MOU between the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, or the Korean Association of Arbitration Studies and arbitration commissions such as those of Beijing, Xian, Chongqing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou which comparatively do guarantee party autonomy. Fifth, because application of the preservation of property before application of arbitration is not approved in China, in practice, in order to preserve property before application of arbitration, it is best to file another suit in China based on other legal issue (e.g., tort) independent from the contract which an arbitration agreement is applied to. Sixth, in arbitration commissions which allow different agreement regarding arbitration procedures or arbitration rules, it is possible to choose a neutral arbitrator from a third country as a presiding arbitrator via UNCITRAL arbitration rules or ICC arbitration rules. Seventh, in the case of Chinese internal arbitral award, because the court reviews the substantive matters to decide the refusal of compulsory execution, the execution rate could be relatively lower than that of foreign-related cases. Therefore, when Korean companies invested in China use Chinese internal arbitration institution, they should endure low rate of execution. Eighth, considering the operational experiences of public policy on foreign-related arbitration awards so far, in cases of Chinese internal arbitration award, the possibility of cancellation of arbitral award or the possibility to refuse to execute the award due to public policy is thought to be higher than that of foreign arbitral awards. Ninth, even though a treaty on judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters has been signed between Korea and China, and it includes a provision on acknowledgement and enforcement of arbitral award, when trying to resolve disputes through Chinese internal arbitration institution, the treaty would not be a big help to resolve the disputes, because the disputes between Korean companies invested in China and the party in China are not subject to the treaty. Tenth, considering recent tendency of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal in China and the voluntary execution rate of the parties, the system of conciliation by the arbitral tribunal is expected to affect as a positive factor the Korean companies that use Chinese internal arbitration institution. Finally, when using online arbitration, arbitration fees can be reduced, and if the arbitration commissions guaranteeing party autonomy have online arbitration system, the possibility of getting impartial arbitration award through them is higher. Therefore, the use of online arbitration system is recommended.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.213-239
• /
• 2011

This article examines two important issues of the demand for payment by the beneficiary and the payment by the guarantor to the beneficiary under the revised Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantee (URDG) published by ICC, which are called URDG 758 and effected on July 1, 2010. Here, after first briefly defining the concept and nature of the demand for payment, this article discusses various issues surrounding the demand: By whom, where and how the demand has to be made; which documents are required in demanding the payment; how much amount can be demanded and paid; when and where the payment has to be made and which currency has to be used for the payment. The demand for payment has to be made by the beneficiary to the guarantor on or before expiry of the guarantee at the place of issuance of the guarantee unless any other place is specified in the guarantee. The demand has to be made in paper form unless the guarantee requires an electronic form. Unless otherwise expressly stipulated in the guarantee, the demand must be supported by a statement by the beneficiary indicating the applicant is in breach of the underlying contract. Also the demand must identify the guarantee under which it is made, and the time for examination by the guarantor starts on the date of identification. The demand cannot be for more than the amount available under the guarantee. When the demand is complying the guarantor must pay the amount demanded. The payment has to be made at the branch or office of the guarantor that issued the guarantee unless any other place is indicated in the guarantee. The payment has to be made in the currency specified in the guarantee, unless the guarantor is unable to make payment in that currency due to an impediment beyond its control or any illegality under the law of the place for payment. In case of "extend or pay" or "pay or extend" demands, the demand is deemed to be withdrawn if the extension is granted. But if not, the demand has to be paid without any further demand by the beneficiary.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to examine the viewpoints of the different legal systems for the validity of LD Clause and the possibility of gap-filling function of UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Contract. The results of comparative study between common law system and civil law system, and between CISG and UNCDROIT Principles is as follows: First, common law system distinguishes LD Clause and Penalty Clause, but civil law system including Korean law does not strictly distinguish the difference between them, provided that the liquidated damages are not grossly excessive. Second, CISG does not concerned with the validity of LD Clause but entrust this matter to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law; conversely the Principles follow similar position of civil law system. The possibility of gap-filling of the Principles is more positive in the case of arbitration than in the case of litigation. On the basis of above study, I also checked the LD Clauses of ICC Model International Sales and the Model Contracts of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The LD Clauses of there two Model Contract seem very appropriate and reasonable for the reference in practical application. The appropriate, not excessive, LD Clause will contribute not only to eliminate the burden of proof for the actual damages, but also to enforce both parties to perform their obligations in their contracts. Therefore, When we make contract, we should keep in our mind to insert the reasonable and appropriate LD Clause in the sales contract. If not, so to speak, litigated damages are grossly excessive, the Clause may be invalid in some legal system.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.261-301
• /
• 2016

Recently the abusive calls on on-demand bonds have been a critical issue among many engineering and construction companies in Korea. On-demand bond is referred to as an independent guarantee in the sense that the guarantee is independent from its underlying contract although it was issued based on such underlying contract. For this reason, the issuing bank is not required to and/or entitled to look into whether there really is a breach of underlying contract in relation to the call on demand-bonds. Due to this kind of principle of independence, the applicant has to run the risk of the on demand bond being called by the beneficiary without due grounds. Only where the call proves to be fraudulent or abusive in a very clear way, the issuing bank would not be obligated to pay the bond proceeds for the call on on-demand bonds. In order to prevent the issuing bank from paying the proceeds under the on-demand bond, the applicant usually files with its competent court an application for injunction prohibiting the beneficiary from calling against the issuing bank. However, it is in practice difficult for the applicant to prove the beneficiary's call on the bond to be fraudulent since the courts in almost all the jurisdictions of advanced countries require very strict and objective evidences such as the documents which were signed by the owner (beneficiary) or any other third party like the engineer. There is another way of preventing the beneficiary from calling on the bond, which is often utilized especially in the United Kingdom or Western European countries such as Germany. Based upon the underlying contract, the contractor which is at the same time the applicant of on-demand bond requests the court to order the owner (the beneficiary) not to call on the bond. In this case, there apparently seems to be no reason why the court should apply the strict fraud rule to determine whether to grant an injunction in that the underlying legal relationship was created based on a construction contract rather than a bond. However, in most jurisdictions except for United Kingdom and Singapore, the court also applies the strict fraud rule on the ground that the parties promised to make the on-demand bond issued under the construction contract. This kind of injunction is highly unlikely to be utilized on the international level because it is very difficult in normal situations to establish the international jurisdiction towards the beneficiary which will be usually located outside the jurisdiction of the relevant court. This kind of injunction ordering the owner not to call on the bond can be rendered by the arbitrator as well even though the arbitrator has no coercive power for the owner to follow it. Normally there would be no arbitral tribunal existing at the time of the bond being called. In this case, the emergency arbitrator which most of the international arbitration rules such as ICC, LCIA and SIAC, etc. adopt can be utilized. Finally, the contractor can block the issuing bank from paying the bond proceeds by way of a provisional attachment in case where it also has rights to claim some unpaid interim payments or damages. This is the preservative measure under civil law system, which the lawyers from common law system are not familiar with. As explained in this article, it is very difficult to block the issuing bank from paying in response to the bond call by the beneficiary even if the call has no valid ground under the underlying construction contract. Therefore, it is necessary for the applicants who are normally engineering and construction companies to be prudent to make on-demand bonds issued. They need to take into account the creditability of the project owner as well as trustworthiness of the judiciary system of the country where the owner is domiciled.