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.
This study is focused on the review of buyer's remedy resulting from the breach of seller's duty in contracts for the international sale of goods focusing on UNCCIS, 1980 and the problems and suggestions of proper ideas for solving the problems. First problem on the buyer's remedy is related to the breach of seller's duty on del ivory of the contracted goods. When seller has failed to deliver the contracted goods to buyer within the stipulated periods, buyer can treat the contract as avoided and claim damages from seller. By the way, since UNCCIS does not provide any stipulation on the time of buyer's avoidance of the contract, buyer can delay the time of avoidance when the price of contracted goods is rising rapidly and enlarge the amount of damages, Since this stipulation is clearly unreasonable, proper solutions are required for UNCCIS. Second problem is related to the breach of seller's duty on deliver of goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packged in the manner required by the contract. When seller has failed to deliver goods which are confirm with the contract, buyer may have one of the two rights of damages and the price reduction according to UNCCIS provided that he does not choose the avoidance. But, since the character and position of the price reduction as a buyer's remedy are not sufficient solutions, more detailed review on this point is required. Third, Seller's duty to provide documents is very important for overseas trade, but UNCCIS does not provide any specific buyer's remedy in comparison with the other remedy and also does not provide any stipulation on the Letter of Credit which have important roles for a device of setting payment in overseas trade. This means that trade customs and practice have not sufficiently reflected in UNCCIS. As the problems mentioned above may decrease the evaluation of buyer's remedy in UNCCIS and, furthermore, that of UNCCIS itself, proper solutions on these points are needed.
English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.
In the UK's the insurance law 2015, a remedy for breach of warranty in marine insurance was introduced. Also, if the insured proves that breach of warranty in marine insurance does not affect damages, the insurer pays the insurance money to the insured. The UK's marine insurance law has served as the governing law that has been the standard for the marine insurance industry for a long time. Korea and China were heavily influenced by the UK maritime insurance law. Therefore, this study analyzed the cases of breach of warranty in marine insurance in Korea and China. Through this, the insurer avoid the insurance contract for an accident that occurred after the breach of warranty. this result will be different under the new revised insurance law system. With the revision to The Insurance Act 2015, one of the biggest change in the insurance system is that it is possible to remedy of the violations of warranty. However, such a revision of the law requires considerable attention as it also changes the interpretation and judgment of the courts. Accordingly, a practical response of the insurance industry is required. It is necessary to prepare for possible disputes in practice.
The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.
CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.
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.
Korea has become a member of the United Nations Convention on Contract of the International Sales of Goods (the 'CISG') effective since March 1, 2005. As, therefore, the governing law of the general terms and conditions (the 'GTC') in the Government Foreign Procurement Contract (the 'Contract') is mandatorily fixed to the Korean Law, the CISG, as an International Convention, now having an equivalent or even higher status to the Korean Law, unless expressly excluded, will be priorly applied to the Contract where a transaction occurs between its members. In this regard, this study focuses on how to find the way for the CISG to be a governing law of the GTC in order to eliminate legal uncertainties and lacks of foreseeability prevailed in the international trade. For that purpose, the legal aspects of GTC, and the Buyer's remedy for the Seller's breach of the Contract are analyzed in accordance with the comparative study between the CISG and the GTC including the relevant case studies. As a result of this study, the application of the CISG into the GTC is highly recommended in order to reflect into the Contract such features as fairly harmonized for the interest of both parties. Taking this opportunity, a GTC, amended from the existing one, or newly formed, within the perimeter of not conflicting with the provisions of the CISG, including but not limited to the Civil Law and Commercial Law, is required in order to evenly share each party's responsibilities and obligations where the breach or remedy of the Contract is, and, thus, which will ultimately contribute to an efficient conduct of the Contract.
Unlike continental European legal systems (civil law systems), specific performance in common law refers to an equitable remedy requiring exactly the performance that was specified in a contract. It usually granted only when money damages would be an inadequate remedy and the subject matter of the contract is unique. Thus, under common law specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. Consistent with the practice in civil law jurisdictions, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) makes specific performance the normal remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. Therefore, the buyer may require a breaching seller to deliver substitute goods or to make any reasonable repair. Likewise, the sellermay require the buyer to taker delivery of goods and pay for them. Despite this, Article 28 of the CISG restricts the availability of specific performance where it would be unavailable under the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located. Thus, the CISG's more liberal policy toward specific performance is restricted by common law. There are some legal issues in CISG's specific performance availability by Article 28. This paper analyzes these issues as interpreting Article 28 of CISG, by examining various theories of application to actions for specific performance and comparing CLOUT cases involving CISG Article 28.
본 웹사이트에 게시된 이메일 주소가 전자우편 수집 프로그램이나
그 밖의 기술적 장치를 이용하여 무단으로 수집되는 것을 거부하며,
이를 위반시 정보통신망법에 의해 형사 처벌됨을 유념하시기 바랍니다.
[게시일 2004년 10월 1일]
이용약관
제 1 장 총칙
제 1 조 (목적)
이 이용약관은 KoreaScience 홈페이지(이하 “당 사이트”)에서 제공하는 인터넷 서비스(이하 '서비스')의 가입조건 및 이용에 관한 제반 사항과 기타 필요한 사항을 구체적으로 규정함을 목적으로 합니다.
제 2 조 (용어의 정의)
① "이용자"라 함은 당 사이트에 접속하여 이 약관에 따라 당 사이트가 제공하는 서비스를 받는 회원 및 비회원을
말합니다.
② "회원"이라 함은 서비스를 이용하기 위하여 당 사이트에 개인정보를 제공하여 아이디(ID)와 비밀번호를 부여
받은 자를 말합니다.
③ "회원 아이디(ID)"라 함은 회원의 식별 및 서비스 이용을 위하여 자신이 선정한 문자 및 숫자의 조합을
말합니다.
④ "비밀번호(패스워드)"라 함은 회원이 자신의 비밀보호를 위하여 선정한 문자 및 숫자의 조합을 말합니다.
제 3 조 (이용약관의 효력 및 변경)
① 이 약관은 당 사이트에 게시하거나 기타의 방법으로 회원에게 공지함으로써 효력이 발생합니다.
② 당 사이트는 이 약관을 개정할 경우에 적용일자 및 개정사유를 명시하여 현행 약관과 함께 당 사이트의
초기화면에 그 적용일자 7일 이전부터 적용일자 전일까지 공지합니다. 다만, 회원에게 불리하게 약관내용을
변경하는 경우에는 최소한 30일 이상의 사전 유예기간을 두고 공지합니다. 이 경우 당 사이트는 개정 전
내용과 개정 후 내용을 명확하게 비교하여 이용자가 알기 쉽도록 표시합니다.
제 4 조(약관 외 준칙)
① 이 약관은 당 사이트가 제공하는 서비스에 관한 이용안내와 함께 적용됩니다.
② 이 약관에 명시되지 아니한 사항은 관계법령의 규정이 적용됩니다.
제 2 장 이용계약의 체결
제 5 조 (이용계약의 성립 등)
① 이용계약은 이용고객이 당 사이트가 정한 약관에 「동의합니다」를 선택하고, 당 사이트가 정한
온라인신청양식을 작성하여 서비스 이용을 신청한 후, 당 사이트가 이를 승낙함으로써 성립합니다.
② 제1항의 승낙은 당 사이트가 제공하는 과학기술정보검색, 맞춤정보, 서지정보 등 다른 서비스의 이용승낙을
포함합니다.
제 6 조 (회원가입)
서비스를 이용하고자 하는 고객은 당 사이트에서 정한 회원가입양식에 개인정보를 기재하여 가입을 하여야 합니다.
제 7 조 (개인정보의 보호 및 사용)
당 사이트는 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 회원 등록정보를 포함한 회원의 개인정보를 보호하기 위해 노력합니다. 회원 개인정보의 보호 및 사용에 대해서는 관련법령 및 당 사이트의 개인정보 보호정책이 적용됩니다.
제 8 조 (이용 신청의 승낙과 제한)
① 당 사이트는 제6조의 규정에 의한 이용신청고객에 대하여 서비스 이용을 승낙합니다.
② 당 사이트는 아래사항에 해당하는 경우에 대해서 승낙하지 아니 합니다.
- 이용계약 신청서의 내용을 허위로 기재한 경우
- 기타 규정한 제반사항을 위반하며 신청하는 경우
제 9 조 (회원 ID 부여 및 변경 등)
① 당 사이트는 이용고객에 대하여 약관에 정하는 바에 따라 자신이 선정한 회원 ID를 부여합니다.
② 회원 ID는 원칙적으로 변경이 불가하며 부득이한 사유로 인하여 변경 하고자 하는 경우에는 해당 ID를
해지하고 재가입해야 합니다.
③ 기타 회원 개인정보 관리 및 변경 등에 관한 사항은 서비스별 안내에 정하는 바에 의합니다.
제 3 장 계약 당사자의 의무
제 10 조 (KISTI의 의무)
① 당 사이트는 이용고객이 희망한 서비스 제공 개시일에 특별한 사정이 없는 한 서비스를 이용할 수 있도록
하여야 합니다.
② 당 사이트는 개인정보 보호를 위해 보안시스템을 구축하며 개인정보 보호정책을 공시하고 준수합니다.
③ 당 사이트는 회원으로부터 제기되는 의견이나 불만이 정당하다고 객관적으로 인정될 경우에는 적절한 절차를
거쳐 즉시 처리하여야 합니다. 다만, 즉시 처리가 곤란한 경우는 회원에게 그 사유와 처리일정을 통보하여야
합니다.
제 11 조 (회원의 의무)
① 이용자는 회원가입 신청 또는 회원정보 변경 시 실명으로 모든 사항을 사실에 근거하여 작성하여야 하며,
허위 또는 타인의 정보를 등록할 경우 일체의 권리를 주장할 수 없습니다.
② 당 사이트가 관계법령 및 개인정보 보호정책에 의거하여 그 책임을 지는 경우를 제외하고 회원에게 부여된
ID의 비밀번호 관리소홀, 부정사용에 의하여 발생하는 모든 결과에 대한 책임은 회원에게 있습니다.
③ 회원은 당 사이트 및 제 3자의 지적 재산권을 침해해서는 안 됩니다.
제 4 장 서비스의 이용
제 12 조 (서비스 이용 시간)
① 서비스 이용은 당 사이트의 업무상 또는 기술상 특별한 지장이 없는 한 연중무휴, 1일 24시간 운영을
원칙으로 합니다. 단, 당 사이트는 시스템 정기점검, 증설 및 교체를 위해 당 사이트가 정한 날이나 시간에
서비스를 일시 중단할 수 있으며, 예정되어 있는 작업으로 인한 서비스 일시중단은 당 사이트 홈페이지를
통해 사전에 공지합니다.
② 당 사이트는 서비스를 특정범위로 분할하여 각 범위별로 이용가능시간을 별도로 지정할 수 있습니다. 다만
이 경우 그 내용을 공지합니다.
제 13 조 (홈페이지 저작권)
① NDSL에서 제공하는 모든 저작물의 저작권은 원저작자에게 있으며, KISTI는 복제/배포/전송권을 확보하고
있습니다.
② NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 상업적 및 기타 영리목적으로 복제/배포/전송할 경우 사전에 KISTI의 허락을
받아야 합니다.
③ NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 보도, 비평, 교육, 연구 등을 위하여 정당한 범위 안에서 공정한 관행에
합치되게 인용할 수 있습니다.
④ NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 무단 복제, 전송, 배포 기타 저작권법에 위반되는 방법으로 이용할 경우
저작권법 제136조에 따라 5년 이하의 징역 또는 5천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처해질 수 있습니다.
제 14 조 (유료서비스)
① 당 사이트 및 협력기관이 정한 유료서비스(원문복사 등)는 별도로 정해진 바에 따르며, 변경사항은 시행 전에
당 사이트 홈페이지를 통하여 회원에게 공지합니다.
② 유료서비스를 이용하려는 회원은 정해진 요금체계에 따라 요금을 납부해야 합니다.
제 5 장 계약 해지 및 이용 제한
제 15 조 (계약 해지)
회원이 이용계약을 해지하고자 하는 때에는 [가입해지] 메뉴를 이용해 직접 해지해야 합니다.
제 16 조 (서비스 이용제한)
① 당 사이트는 회원이 서비스 이용내용에 있어서 본 약관 제 11조 내용을 위반하거나, 다음 각 호에 해당하는
경우 서비스 이용을 제한할 수 있습니다.
- 2년 이상 서비스를 이용한 적이 없는 경우
- 기타 정상적인 서비스 운영에 방해가 될 경우
② 상기 이용제한 규정에 따라 서비스를 이용하는 회원에게 서비스 이용에 대하여 별도 공지 없이 서비스 이용의
일시정지, 이용계약 해지 할 수 있습니다.
제 17 조 (전자우편주소 수집 금지)
회원은 전자우편주소 추출기 등을 이용하여 전자우편주소를 수집 또는 제3자에게 제공할 수 없습니다.
제 6 장 손해배상 및 기타사항
제 18 조 (손해배상)
당 사이트는 무료로 제공되는 서비스와 관련하여 회원에게 어떠한 손해가 발생하더라도 당 사이트가 고의 또는 과실로 인한 손해발생을 제외하고는 이에 대하여 책임을 부담하지 아니합니다.
제 19 조 (관할 법원)
서비스 이용으로 발생한 분쟁에 대해 소송이 제기되는 경우 민사 소송법상의 관할 법원에 제기합니다.
[부 칙]
1. (시행일) 이 약관은 2016년 9월 5일부터 적용되며, 종전 약관은 본 약관으로 대체되며, 개정된 약관의 적용일 이전 가입자도 개정된 약관의 적용을 받습니다.