• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 2016

Article 77 of CISG requires an aggrieved party, the promisee, claiming damages to take reasonable measures to mitigate losses. The reasonable measures required hereunder are limited to those that can be expected under the circumstances having regard to the principle of good faith. When taking such measures, the aggrieved party must do so within a reasonable time under the circumstances. The expenses incurred in taking such measures are recoverable from the promisor. If the aggrieved party fails to do so, the damages recoverable from the promisor are reduced in the amount the loss that should have been mitigated. The aggrieved party's duty to mitigate damages applies to claim for damages only. That is, the violation of this duty should not be invoked against other remedies available under CISG, such as the right to claim specific performance, the right to claim for the price or the right of reduction of price. In practice, under the provision of article 77, the aggrieved party, the seller or the buyer, is often required to enter into a substitute transaction as a measure to mitigate losses and many cases involving a substitute transaction are internationally reported. Therefore this paper intends to provide a certain understanding of the aggrieved party's duty to take measures to mitigate losses based on such cases reported.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2) which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2015

A party who relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from the breach. Appropriate measures are those aimed at lessing the loss as far as reasonably possible. Such measures will typically be a resale of the goods by the seller or a cover purchase by the buyer. The measures the injured party is expected to take in order to mitigate the loss must be reasonable in the circumstances. Article 77 will be applied to the difference between the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated under Article 77. A reduction of damages is the only remedy available to the party in breach in cases covered by Article 77. If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. If goods dispatched to the buyer have been placed at his disposal at their destination and he exercises the right to reject them, he must take possession of them on behalf of the seller. Article 86(1) requires that the buyer manifest his intention at the moment of receipt of the goods. Article 86(2) envisages that the goods have been dispatched to the buyer and that they have been placed at his disposal at their destination. Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person. It is not necessary that the warehouse by public, or that it be a general warehouse for storage. A party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with articles 86 may sell them by any appropriate means taking possession of the goods or in taking them back or in paying the price or the cost of preservation. If the goods are subject to rapid deterioration or their preservation world involve unreasonable expense, a party who is bound to preserve the goods must take reasonable measures to sell them. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2 )which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods. According to Article 88(2), the party who wishes to sell must give notice to the other party of such intention, to the extent possible.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems in exercising buyer's right to claim damages for the breach of contract by the seller in international sales contract and to suggest reasonable counter-measures. The main contents are as follows: First, this author analyzed the principles of the seller's liability for damages in detail and examined the methods for the calculation of damages on the basis of Arts.74~77. As these articles are found to be insufficient in practical application, this author further examined the UNIDROIT Principles(2004) to confirm whether these Principles can fill the gaps of CISG or not, which turned out their gap-filling functions. Second, this author tried to find any expected problems when the buyer resorts to the right to claim damages in case of the seller's breach of contract including the estimation of damages, the burden of proof, causation, the proof of appropriateness for avoidance, the proof of buyer's obligation to mitigate the loss and so on. The reason is that these problems may cause a lot of difficulties in real business. As result, many buyers have given up their reasonable rights to claim damages so far. Finally, from the buyer's perspective, this author would like to suggest a liquidated damage clause(LD Clause) which gives the buyer to received a specified sum in case of seller's non-performance and/or a demand guarantee(or standby L/C) which guarantees buyer to secure unconditional payment independent of the underlying contract. For these purposes, the buyer should try to insert the LD Clause and/or Guarantee Clause in the contract when the buyer and the seller negotiate the sales contract. Also there are a lot of considerations and limitations in using the LD Clause and the Guarantee Clause in their real business, mainly dependent up bargain power between the seller and the buyer, for which this author promise to examine in detail in the future.