• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.8
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The buyer's right to withhold performance is a useful and important self-help remedy to protect himself from the seller's breach of contract, and it is also the coercive means to induce the seller to perform his part of contract. However, the buyer's exercise of such a right often exposes himself to the risk of breaching the contract. This is generally due to his ignorance when he is entitled to the right and also uncertainties inherent in the law. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine what the requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right for the seller's actual breach of contract. Design/methodology - In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance under the CISG and the CESL. It mainly focuses on performance due, the seller's non-performance, the buyer's readiness to perform and the requirement of notice. Findings - The main findings of this comparative study can be summarized as follows: Although the CISG has no expressive provision for the buyer's general right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance, it may be inferred from the general principles the CISG underlies, synallagmatic nature of the contract. In addition, it can be drawn by analogy from relevant provisions of the CISG. On the other hand, the CESL expressively provides that the buyer has a general right to withhold performance where the seller fails to tender performance or perform the contract. Therefore, it seems that the position of CESL is rather easier and more apparent to allow the buyer to withhold performance for the seller's non-performance. Originality/value - Most of the existing studies on the right to withhold performance under the CISG have centered on the right to withhold performance for an anticipatory breach of contract. On the other hand, there have been few prior studies on the right to withhold performance for the actual nonperformance during a contractual period of performance. Therefore, this paper examined the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance under the CISG and the CESL in a comparative way for the seller's actual breach of obligation. In this conclusion, it may provide practical and legal considerations and implications for business people who are not certain about the right to withhold performance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.251-293
• /
• 2002

The study is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers defective goods or documents of three legal systems; the CISG, English law and Korean law. The purposes underlying this study are twofold. The first is to clarify the current position as to the right of withholding performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective goods or documents in Korean law, CISG and English law so that it may assist the parties in drafting the buyer's right to withhold performance in their own contract. The second is to compare the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and to evaluate the rules in light of the practical functions and benefits of the right to withhold performance and the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It shows that each jurisdiction does not have any provision or case law specifically dealing with the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers the goods which are defective in terms of quality or quantity. The absence of such provision or case in each jurisdiction has resulted in either disputes or uncertainty. However, the study executed in light of the primary functions and benefits of the right in practice and the discipline of comparative law reveals that, first, the view in English law which is against recognizing the right may not be justified when one considers the practical importance of having the right and the position taken by the CISG as a well developed and modernized law, second, the view in Korean law which argues that the principle of specific goods dogma on which it is based is extended even to substitutable or repairable goods cannot be also justified on the ground of one's ordinary expectation and the position under the CISG and English law which imposes a contractual duty to deliver non-defective goods on the seller insofar as the buyer's payment is deemed to be made in exchange for the seller's delivery of non-defective goods and they are substitutable or repairable. Regarding the right to withhold performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective documents, the study shows that the relatively detailed rules in English law may be utilized as a guideline to fill the gap in the CISG and Korean law in terms of the practicability and appropriateness to govern documentary sales. Furthermore, it is found that the position in English law which confers on the buyer the right to withhold performance for a trivial defect in documents may be unreasonable in terms of one's need to enable justice to be done in individual cases.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.2
• /
• pp.67-86
• /
• 2020

This study analyzes the buyer's remedies for defects in title under DCFR, and it is compared with those of CISG. DCFR adopts a unitary concept of 'non-performance' which is any failure and includes delayed performance and any other performance which is not conformed with the contract. In terms of defects in title, any remedies for non-performance are available under DCFR. Thus. under DCFR, the buyer is entitled to enforce specific performance of obligations, to withhold performance, to terminate for fundamental non-performance, to reduce price, to damage for loss, to require repair, or to deliver a replacement. But under CISG, whether or not defects in title constitute 'non-conformity' is not clear and the majority understands 'non-conformity' does not include title defects. Therefore, the buyer may not has rights to require repair and delivery of replacement unlike DCFR.