• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.673-698
• /
• 2016

This study tries to conduct a systematic analysis on whether adding up the royalties and license fees or not in measuring the taxable amount of tariff. We have confirmed that three main criteria to decide whether it is yes or not are non-inclusion, relatedness and condition of sale. We also have realized that whether satisfying a condition of sale or not depends on license agreement, sales contract, special relationship and so on. Furthermore, we have made case studies of bonded factory, film's domestic distribution, exempt royalty and license fee, price for exclusive use of relevant technology, retroactive application of price change and strict interpretation. Based on the case studies we have derived the following conclusions: First, the royalties and license fees only actually paid to the licensors may be added to taxable amount. Second, the royalties and license fees incurred after the imported goods are made into domestic goods may not be added up. Third, the royalties and license fees paid as a price for use may not be added up. Fourth, the analogical interpretation of relevant codes is not accepted.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.265-286
• /
• 2009

Dumping describes the practice of international price discrimination whereby a producer or exporter sells merchandise in an export market at less than fair value. The U.S. antidumping statutory framework is embodied in the Tariff Act of 1930. The Act states that "dumping" refers to the sale or likely sale of goods at less than fair value. 19 U.S.C. $\S$ 1677(34). The Commerce Department and the Commission are jointly responsible for administering the antidumping law. Commerce determines whether foreign merchandise is being sold in the United States at less than fair value, and the Commission determines whether a domestic industry producing a product like the imported merchandise has been materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of that product. Recently, in U.S. v. Eurodif, the Supreme Court held the question whether the Commerce can reasonably determin that foreign merchandise has been sold within the meaning of the antidumping law in U.S.. Should 19 U.S.C. Section 1673, which calls for "antidumping" duties on foreign goods, but not services, that sell at less than fair value in the U.S., apply to imported low enriched uranium? Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Department's view of imported low enriched uranium, as the sale of goods rather than services, was permissible. It reasoned that, since 19 U.S.C. Section 1673 did not specify whether it applied to the production of low enriched uranium, it was left to the reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Department to determine. Accordingly, the Court found the Commerce Department interpreted the statute reasonably.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The CISG does not stipulate the subject of the burden of proof, and in the arbitral award, the buyer is liable for proof compared to the seller for nonconformity of the product. Without a unified interpretation of the burden of proof of non-contractual goods, confusion of uncertainty may increase if the parties to the sale contract have a dispute due to the trade in goods. It is an important issue to create a unified regulation on this because the courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of the CISG interpret and apply the "seller's obligation to conform to the goods contract" stipulated in this Convention in various ways. In this study, in the case of international Sales of Goods there is a tendency to prefer arbitration through arbitration agencies in the dispute, so the subject of burden of proof is analyzed through arbitration cases applied by CISG as the governing law. Most international commodity trading around the world is regulated by this Convention, but according to the rigid convention regulations, it is analyzed and interpreted through cases where this convention is applied to each country's international arbitration, suggesting the need for a rigid CISG revision.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.551-581
• /
• 2009

This case study explores the stock sale, the resulting governance structures, and the airport management and development in Beijing Capital International Airport and Shanghai International Airport at Pudong. It is imperative for Incheon International Airport Corporation (IIAC) to change the management paradigm to survive in the changing environment and to become hubs in the relevant regions. And IIAC needs to search for the new ownership and governance structure to cope with the internal and external demands for innovation. In this study, along with the recent trends of the global airport industry, we suggest the implications for the IIAC's major decisions, especially, for the stock sale, the resulting governance structure, and the airport development and management. It is suggested that Korean government retain the majority control in the process of privatization to keep IIAC as a government-owned enterprise to provide the public goods to the citizen. Furthermore, to maximize the value of stock sale, IIAC needs to decide strategically the time and speed in the hybrid form of stock selling using trade sale and IPOs.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2000

Incoterms mean the ICC official rules for the interpretation of trade terms which facilitate the conduct of international trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, Incoterms has been revised successively to adapt them to contemporary commercial practice. In particularly, substantive changes in Incoterms 2000 have been made in two areas: (i) the customs clearance under FAS and DEQ; and (ii) the loading and unloading obligations under FCA. But it should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to the contract of sale and not apply to the contracts of carriage, insurance and financing. Moreover, merchants wishing to use Incoterms 2000 should clearly specify that their contract is governed by 'Incoterms 2000'. It is particularly important to note that Incoterms are not dealt with a great number of problems, such as transfer of property rights, breaches of contract and exemptions from liability. Therefore, the contracting parties should clearly agree to the applicable law related their contract of sale, like the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.43-64
• /
• 2023

Purpose - This paper studies whether CISG can be a suitable governing law for pure service contracts. When CISG was first drafted, there was little disagreement on the fact that contracts for the sale of goods and those for the provision of services were two different types of contract. Based on this understanding, CISG explicitly provides that the Convention will apply to contracts where the preponderant part of the contractual obligation is on the sale of goods, not services. However, as more sales transactions have come to include more elements of services, mainly due to the advancement of the IoT industry, the distinction between goods and services became more blurred. Based on the observation of recent changes, some scholars even argue that such a change supports the applicability and suitability of CISG to even pure service contracts. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate their argument. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on two separate but related issues: CISG's 'applicability' and 'suitability' to service contracts. For the first issue, this paper will examine the rules of interpretation of international treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and will apply its rules to find the proper answer. For the second issue, this paper will perform logical and empirical analyses on the reasoning employed by scholars claiming the suitability of CISG to service contracts. Findings - This paper concludes that CISG does not, and should not, apply to pure service contracts. The argument that CISG applies to pure service contracts directly contravenes Article 3(2) of the Convention, which expressly states that it does not apply to a contract wherein the preponderant part of its obligation is about services rather than sales. Similarly, CISG is not a suitable governing law for pure service contracts because it aims provide rules specifically tailored to the needs of transactions of sales of goods, not services. Servitization of sales of goods transaction does not change this conclusion. Originality/value - This paper presents different views from those offered by some eminent scholars on the issue of applicability and suitability of CISG to service contracts. By doing so, it is hoped that the confusion caused in discussions so far are clarified. Hopefully, this paper can also provide practical guidance to practitioners engaged in the fields of international sales, services, and IoT industries.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.385-404
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this article is to examine the Delays of Performance under UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In theory, there exist three clearly distinguishable categories of breach of contract, namely non-performance, non-conforming performance and late performance. In particular, delays of performance are the most common breach of sales contract including late delivery, late payment or late performance of any other obligation. In this regard, this article examines how parties can, through careful drafting, avoid or minimize legal problems in case of delay in performance. Especially, the export perspective focuses on the seller's interests, which require that sanctions be as lenient as possible if the seller has breached the contract but that there are prompt and adequate sanctions if the buyer has breached the contract. Furthermore, the seller should ensure that a short or medium delay in delivery will not entitle the buyer to declare the contract immediately avoided and take precautions against late payment, including delayed opening of a letter of credit.