• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제21권1호
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 1999

Under the CISG, there is a unequitable factor in comparing buyer's remedy with seller's remedy. In my opinion, CISG is more unequitable remedy clause than UCC or UNIDROIT principle of International Commercial Contract(1994) between seller and buyer. First, buyer who accepted defect goods must give seller notice the facts that seller delivered defect goods in two years after accepting defect goods. The cap of two year is unreasonable in a position of aggrieved buyer. This is being provided as 'within reasonable time' in UCC and there is no such provision in UNIDROIT Principle. Second, Buyer can avoid contract when seller breached fundamentally contract or seller didn't set a additional performance period about breaching of contract. Accordingly if buyer would not set a additional performance period, although seller's breachment of contract, he could not avoid the contract. Therefore, From a viewpoint of aggrieved buyer avoidable right of contract is restrainted. Third, to compare seller's remedy with buyer's, seller have more opportunity to cure breachment of contract than buyer. Under the CISG buyer is relatively placed at disadvantage in remedy of aggrieved party. In connection with remedy of aggrieved party, 'UNIDROIT principle of international commercial contracts' instead seller and buyer of aggrieved party, so there is not unequitable factor in remedy of aggrieved parties.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제47권1호
• /
• pp.131-144
• /
• 2022

This study primarily concerns the Model Contract for International Sale of Manufactured Goods recently published by International Chamber of Commerce in 2020. To this end, this study examines the importance of the ICC model contract and its main characteristics, and considers in what form the contract is composed of and the scope of its application by classifying it according to the object of the contract, the subject and type of the transaction. In addition, this study divides the main contents of the ICC model contract into special conditions and general conditions, and attempts to scrutinize details of each condition in connection with the United Nations Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods(1980) as a governing law taken by the ICC model contract. Furthermore, this study puts forward, on the basis of the detailed examination of main conditions of ICC Model Contract, practical implications on what the parties to the contract should be aware of when using the ICC model contract.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제27권4호
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.99-122
• /
• 2012

According to the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods, the Seller must deliver the goods, hand over any documents relating to the them and transfer the property the to the goods as required by the contract, and buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. In particular, the seller provides the documents is important. If the documents are discrepancies in credit, the beneficiary may not receive the payment. So It is important to study on conditions of documents in international trade. Documents provided by the seller shall be determined by express terms. If there is no agreement on the express terms, it shall be determined by the implied terms or governing law terms. In practice Seller shall provide the documents are as follows, For example, transport documents, commercial invoice, certificate of origin, insurance policy, packing list, inspection certificate etc. As stated above if it can not be determined by express terms, it is determined by the implied terms. In international trade, leading to the implied terms is incoterms(R) 2010 and UCP 600. Incoterms(R) 2010 define the seller must provide the goods and the commercial in conformity with the sales contract and any other evidence of conformity that may be required by the contract and UCP 600 are rules that apply to documentary credit. This paper, the practical utility between Incoterms(R) 2010 and UCP 600 is studied.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.129-151
• /
• 2003

Nowadays even if environment of international commercial transaction is changing quickly municipal law could not meet with such change accordingly. So far, however, efforts towards unification have prevailingly taken the form of binding instruments, such as non-national or supranational legislation, international conventions or international model laws. Among them, the UNIDROIT Principles with parties' autonomous and yet non-binding character do not only meet the substantive requirements of a true law merchant. In addition they also counter some of the main points of criticism against the modern lex mercatoria. As such the Principles constitute a cornerstone in the lex mercatoria debate and may become the heart of the new lex mercatoria. The purpose of this article is to ask whether there could be applied the Principles in international commerce. For the purpose it is to investigate when the Principles are applied in international commerce and how effectively the Principles are applied for the decision in international commercial disputes. Even though the Principles are used for reference by parties involved for the voluntary regulation of their contract, it is sufficiently expected that the Principles are to be a stepstone of uniform contract law in international commerce. Until now cases of appling the Principles are not satisfied with its expectation as a source of non-legislative means of unification or harmonization of law. Given the party's autonomy in the contract, this is among other things because business parties are strongly tend to observe their national laws in their international commerce. And also, even though there are a number of neutral and uniform regulations for international commercial contracts, parties do not often recognize their usefulness with being up to expectation. In order to explore the applicability of the Principles a number of cases of ICC International Court of Arbitration and others are quoted.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제67권
• /
• pp.49-68
• /
• 2015

In recent years in China, corresponding to a shift in consumption pattern from household basics to greater expenditure on quality of life, new franchising opportunities arise. Although the franchising prospect in China is promising, Korean companies aiming at franchising into China need to be aware of the legal framework for commercial franchise in China as this will have direct impact on their business expansion. Where franchising activities involve trade mark licence, Chinese Franchise Regulations require such trade mark licence agreement to be regulated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Chinese Trademark Law. Furthermore where one party fails to perform his obligation and it impacts purpose of the contract seriously, the other party could avoid the contract in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Chinese Contract Law. To launch franchising business successfully in China, Korean companies do market research sufficiently before they may commence franchise business. Korean franchisor must register with local authorities in China by own name, and make Chinese partner take charge of management of the distribution network and invitation of franchisee partners.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2009

Common law makes a distinction between partial breach and material breach. Attempted definitions of material breach are notoriously unsatisfactory, and the concept of partial breach does not necessarily bear an inverse relationship to substantial performance. This study will review the basic structure of common law contract remedies together with how these remedies are reflected in UCC Article 2 for sale of goods contracts. The matter is complicated because availability of remedy depends on the seriousness of the breach, and the right to cure, and (for sale of goods) these in turn depend on whether the contract is an installment contract or a single performance contract. Common law jurisdictions relegate specific performance of contracts to a last place in the hierarchy of contract remedies. Common law lawyers should recognize that this is the result of historical accident and not the product of some kind of superior intellectual effort. Not only is the attitude of civil law systems toward specific performance quite different, but for international sales contracts in developing nations, a remedy system based on the notion that substitute contracts are readily available(and therefore damage remedies are appropriate) is unrealistic. English common law courts were largely restricted to remedies in the form of monetary damages. For that reason the primary contract remedy at common law has never been specific performance. Rather, common law courts have struggled to develop an appropriate measure of monetary damages for breach of contract. Today, specific performance is viewed as an equitable remedy rather than common law. In the United States the dual court system has been abolished by a merger of law and equity courts into a single court structure. However some historical distinction linger on. The most important is that jury trials are generally not available in actions that seek equitable relief. If a plaintiff seeks in personam relief, such as specific performance of a contract, the action will be viewed as equitable and there will be no entitlement to a jury. Further, equitable relief will be granted only in those situations where the plaintiff pleads and proves that the remedy at law is inadequate. The purpose of this study aims to analyze the remedy system of breach of contract of U.K. and U.S. in the international commercial transactions with criterion of commercial rationality.