• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2009

Article 35 of the CISG defines standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract in terms of type, quantity, quality, and packaging. When we apply these article 35(1), (2) of the CISG to the business connection, we will face several issues in the business connection. Fist, we will face the interpretation of contracts. When we interpret the contract, we must remember the article 8 of the CISG. Statements made by and other conduct of a party are to be interpreted according to the intent of parties. Therefore parties of contract must describe their intent correctly. Second, we must make out a contract in written about the promised contents. And it is needed to insert a merger clause in order to prevent part of contract from disagreeing with each other. Third, there are several interpretation of fitness for the purpose for which the goods would ordinarily be used. So it is important to describe the quality standard to be applied. If it does not describe the standard, it is helpful to apply the reasonable quality test. Fourth, there may be some doubt regarding the question of whose standard-that of the seller's or that of the buyer's state-is relevant in order to determine which characteristics the goods must have in order to be fit for their ordinary purpose. Ultimately, the question of the relevant standard is a matter of the interpretation of the contract.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper examines the legal standards for the interpretation of contract terms in the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (PICC) and the cases thereunder in order to provide academic implication to promoting an appropriate understanding of this topic in practical business. Design/methodology - This article uses the literature research and case study under the PICC. Findings - the contract terms shall be interpreted according to the common intention of the parties. If such an intention cannot be established, the contract shall be interpreted according to the meaning that reasonable persons of the same kind as the parties would give to it in the same circumstances. The statements and other conduct of a party shall be interpreted according to that party's intention if the other party knew or could not have been unaware of that intention. If not, the reasonable person standard will apply. In applying above articles, all relevant circumstances including the conduct of the parties, practices and usages shall be considered. Terms and expressions shall be interpreted in the light of the whole contract or statement in which they appear and contract terms shall be interpreted so as to give effect to all the terms rather than to deprive some of them of effect. Where contract terms supplied by one party are unclear, contra proferentem rule applies. Where there is discrepancy between several equally authoritative versions of a contract, a preference is given to the interpretation according to the version originally drawn up. Where the parties to a contract have not agreed regarding an important term for their rights and duties, a term which is appropriate in the circumstances shall be supplied. Originality/value - This article examines various cases regarding the topic that were determined under the PICC. By finding legal standards and rulings of relevant cases, this article will help readers in practical business to enhance the ability to apply the provisions to their contracts.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.279-301
• /
• 2020

In the absence of any guidance under statutory law, such as the Rules for Construction of Policy, MIA 1906, judges should follow the general principles of interpretation that apply to all contracts. In simple terms, Contra Proferentem Rule means that if the contents of the terms and conditions are ambiguous, they are interpreted against the writer of the terms and conditions. In the Anglo-American Contract Law, the 'default rule' is an important judicial tool that can supplement defects in contract norms and reinforce the principle of private autonomy through gap-filling techniques related to the interpretation of contracts. In Korea, it is sometimes mentioned in case of precedent, and it has been established as a clear rule. This study analyzes the interpretation of terms and conditions is not in the form that the interpretation of other general contracts and other interpretation principles are valid, but contracts based on terms and conditions are also contracts, and as a general rule, the interpretation of terms and conditions is explained like the general contract interpretation.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.31-36
• /
• 2001

Construction contract have great possibility of dispute between contract parties because of long term performance of contract, various participation of the person concerned, effect according to external environment, etc. It is needed correct comprehension and construction management because good reason of claims depends upon contract document or clauses of the related laws and regulations in cases. The purpose of this study is to suggest desirable Interpretation principle for the harmonious management of the construction work in the cases or arbitration adjudication.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.277-293
• /
• 1999

As the CISG has been legislated for a new legal system playing roles as uniform rules which govern international sale of goods, it requires appropriate criterion of interpretation. The Convention distinguishes between two levels of interpretation. One concerns the interpretation of the rules of contract law contained in the CISG itself, and the other the interpretation of specific statements or the conduct of the individual parties to a transaction.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.207-228
• /
• 2005

When closing an international contract, both contract parties endeavor to convey their intentions from the stage of negotiation to the moment of signing the contract. Of the many problems presently related to contract language, the first one to consider is which contract party will run the risk of the language deficiencies occurring as a result of the misunderstanding and misinterpretation between different languages. The second problem to consider is whether the interpretation and translation of the contract language is needed and, if so, which party is going to bear the expenses and assume responsibility of the misinterpretation in the translation of, the contract language. The third problem is related to the obligation of explaining to both contract parties the contents and details of the international contract written in different languages. The fourth issue is which language of both contract parties becomes the standard contract language in the procedure of arbitration. The fifth, but not the last problem, is how to solve the language defects in interpreting and translating the contract languages. These five problems can be easily solved by the approval of the contract parties in scrutinizing and selecting the contract languages. However, this research mainly focuses on which effects of the contract language and as how to define and select the contract language.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.21-40
• /
• 2016

This study mainly deals with a recent case held as to the formation of contract under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(CISG). In order to analyse the fact of the case and the justification of its holdings, it examines the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. In addition to these, it particularly investigates the rules on a delayed acceptance under the CISG. After looking into those rules, it criticizes the holdings and provides legal and practical advice to contracting parties who intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. It finds that whose e-mail in the case amounts to an offer and an acceptance is depended upon the interpretation of intention of the parties expressed in their statement. According to such interpretation, even if a purchase order is requested by the seller for the formation of contract, a contract may be concluded by a simple statement which commits the buyer himself to purchase the seller's goods. This is particularly the case where such request is made only to clarify the buyer's intention to purchase them.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.3-34
• /
• 2013

In the international sales contract, long-term contracts often face hardship in fulfilling the original contract terms by relevant parties due to rapid change and uncertainty of political and economic circumstance. In this case, party who faces hardship of fulfillment terminates contract or demands adaptation to contract condition but if opponent doesn't accept this, it proceeds to commercial dispute needing legal interpretation. Generally it is wise to set forth governing law in contract between parties in the case of international contract, for legal stability. One of universal governing law which relevant parties select by agreement to solve economical hardship of fulfillment is PICC. PICC defines the hardship in detail for renegotiation on following hardship of fulfillment unexpected. In the case of failing renegotiation, Court(arbitral tribunal) conducts termination to contract or adaptation to contract condition through arbitration or mediation. In conclusion, when signing international long-term contract, it is desirous to handle dispute effectively by inserting provisions which can deal with economical hardship in contract or defining PICC as governing law in the case of hardship incurred. It is because it is realistic to handle dispute smoothly to the extent that both parties can be satisfied in the case of hardship incurred, though international contract should be fulfilled.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.6 no.5 s.27
• /
• pp.177-185
• /
• 2005

Construction uncertainties are frequently exposed to the claims. In most cases, an interpretation of the claims is based on the construction contract. Therefore, the key points of contract negotiation are how to fairly distribute the contract risks to the client and contractor. For these, a FIDIC that is considered as an international standard contract form would be a good reference to decide reasonable contract risk distribution. In order to find out any unreasonable and unfair contract clauses at the general conditions of contract applying generally to public construction project in Korea, this study surveys, analyses and evaluates the general conditions of contract based on a FIDIC, and then proposes a risk mitigation methodology to response those clauses' risk factors reasonably.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.