• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.30 no.2 s.150
• /
• pp.221-232
• /
• 2006

The purposes of this paper were to identity the present condition of the imported fashion luxury brands' market arid to analyze the differences of marketing strategies according to the types of retailers. We selected 3 department stores, 5 luxury brands, 5 stores in Dongdeamun Market, and 5 internet luxury shopping malls, and conducted key informant survey to 20 experts. The brands in department stores consisted the goods according to VIPs' pre-orders, sales of the previous year, and fashion trends, and offered the differentiated customer services to VIPs. The stores in Dongdaemun Market bought the products from the parallel importers or imported the goods from the original nations of the brands by themselves. The goods in stock and steady sellers were comprised of the main portion of all products, and leather goods were dominated. The price of goods in stock was about $30\∼50\%$ lower than the normal price of department stores, but the new products' price was only about 10$\%$ lower than that of department stores. Luxury shopping malls could be classified into two types; one conducted both product buying and commission sale, and the other conducted commission sale only. In former case, however, the product buying portion was under 30$\%$. Product assortments and the price strategy were similar to the stores of Dongdeamun Market, and CRM was conducted partially.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).

• 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.52
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2011

This study examines the seller's liability to transfer the property to the buyer. Even though contracting parties choose CISG as the governing law regulating their obligations and rights by means of their contract, CISG does not concern with the effect generated by the transfer of property. Thus, the issues of the property is settled in conformity with the domestic law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. By considering the general rules of the transfer of property in goods under SGA and KCC as the lex rei sitae, the difference of requirements to pass the property between them is analyzed and then the reasons why the transfer of property is importantly considered are discussed. In addition, as CISG does not exclude completely the matters concerning the property and provides the provision like Art 41, the seller's liability to deliver goods free from the third party right or claim is examined under Art 41. Lastly, the practical advice is suggested.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2013

The Incoterms and United Nations Convention on Contract for the international Sales of Goods(CISG) allocate a risk in their articles. These rules make a decision that the parties who make a transaction are bound to bear the risk or damages of goods. Though a goods have a damages or loss during a transportation, buyer is liable for the payment of purchase price. In this case, this paper defines the meaning whether who can bear the risk under Incoterms and CISG. In the majority cases which deal between parties, after shipment or at the end of carriage, the loss or damages are found in buyer's hand. If a damages or loss is made during transit, customarily these risk are covered by insurance. Otherwise, these rules provide a tools for solving this problems. Then, between parties should be accomplished their target equitably.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.41-61
• /
• 1995

The international trade is basically founded on the contract of international sale of goods and backed up by the contract of international carriage of goods and the contract of insurance in the goods carried. For the efficient development of international trade, it is essential to incorporate the above three fields closely together. Economic growth has developed international trade which has accelerated the development of international carriage of goods. As a result of rapid expansion of international carriage of goods, rationalization of transport was required, which has brought about the International Multimodal Transport System(herein after referred to as 'IMT') through containerization. International multimodal transport system has affected international trade a lot, especially the field of insurance a great deal. The aim of this paper is to analyze contents of Multimodal Transport Operator's(MTO's) liability system in the UN Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, 1980 and FIATA Bill of Lading(FBL) as one of current Multimodal Transport Documents. The analysis of MTO's liability system will be a good introductory concept for the further study of insurance problems for the development of IMT.

• The Journal of Information Systems
• /
• v.22 no.4
• /
• pp.85-115
• /
• 2013

Digital knowledge and information goods as experience goods have some unique characteristics such as close to zero reproduction and distribution cost, high price volatility, and low price acceptability. For the reasons, the pricing policies of digital knowledge goods are very difficult and complicate. Also, most consumers of digital goods have experienced cognitive dissonance after buying decision. The purpose of this paper is to investigate what factors affect the price acceptability level and cognitive dissonance of digital knowledge goods buyers. This paper suggest a structural model that was established by the cognitive dissonance theory and S-O-R(Stimulus-Organization-Response) model. The model is consisted of four exogenous variables and three endogenous variables. The empirical test and statistical analysis suggest following results and practical implications. The variables such as product involvement and perception of price fairness that have positive roles to price acceptability have strong influence on the all the three endogenous variables. But the variables such as sale proneness and price mavenism that have negative roles to price acceptability have little influence on the all the three endogenous variables. In the model, the payment intention was very important mediating variable between exogenous variables and two dependent variables, ie. price acceptability and cognitive dissonance. These results imply that the digital knowledge portals must have some differentiated pricing policies to the customers who have price consciousness and price mavenism. Also, they need some special promotions to whom have positive attitude to the value of digital goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.33-53
• /
• 2014

This study examines the seller's liability for defects in title of goods under SGA. If the contracting parties choose SGA as a governing law, they should pay attention to whether a contractual stipulation for defects in title of goods is a condition or a warranty. It is because SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty. And its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Under SGA s 12(1) as a condition, in a contract of sale, the seller has a right to sell the goods at the time of contract, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have such a right at the time when the property is to pass. Under SGA s 12(2) as a warranty, there is an implied warranty that (a) the goods are free, and will remain free until the time when the property is to pass, from any charge or encumbrance and (b) the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods as long as the buyer retains an interest in the goods. But the seller will not be liable if the third party unlawfully interferes with the buyer's possession.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2013

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.1-36
• /
• 2016

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.