• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제19권3호
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

CISG는 국제물품매매계약의 통일화를 위하여 제정되었으나 이와 관련한 모든 부분을 다 포괄하여 적용되는 것은 아니다. 따라서 CISG는 그 내용에 있어 CISG가 적용되지 않는 적용배제사안을 규정하고 있다. CISG 제4조가 이에 해당한다. 이에 본 논문은 중국과의 거래 시 CISG이 적용되는 경우라 하더라도 CISG 제4조에 따라 국내법이 적용될 수 있는 계약의 유효성과 소유권과 관련한 양국의 관련 법규를 비교하였다. CISG 제4조에 근거하여 특정사안의 협정 적용여부는 계약의 일부로서 거래당사자 모두 이를 인지하고 합의하였느냐에 따라 달리진다는 것과 비록 국내법이 적용되는 경우라도 협약의 일반원칙에 반하는 경우 그 적용에 제한이 있을 수 있다는 것이다. 결론적으로 CISG 제4조에 따라 국내법이 적용될 수 있는 사안은 계약의 유효성과 소유권의 이전에 관한 것이다. 실무적으로 중국과 거래하는 기업은 이에 대한 양국 관련법규의 차이점을 이해하고 불필요한 분쟁을 야기하지 않도록 CISG가 적용되는 경우라 하더라도 CISG가 적용되지 않는 사안을 위해 준거법을 선정하여야 할 것이다.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제41권4호
• /
• pp.21-40
• /
• 2016

본 연구는 최근 구매주문서 발송을 조건으로 한 매도인의 승낙을 주요 이슈로 하는 CISG상 판례가 있어 이를 소개하고 심층 분석한 논문에 해당한다. 이러한 분석을 위해 CISG상 계약의 성립 관련 조항을 청약과 승낙으로 나누어 고찰하고, 특히 이 판례의 주요 이슈가 되고 있는 대응청약과 승낙의 요건 및 연착된 승낙의 인용 관련 조항을 주로 고찰하였다. 이와 더불어 판례의 분석과 CISG상 관련 조항의 분석을 통해 CISG를 준거법으로 하여 국제물품매매거래에 임하는 거래 당사자들이 유의하여야 할 실무적 시사점을 도출하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제18권
• /
• pp.27-62
• /
• 2002

The international sale contract is the central contracts in export-import transactions. A good sale contract or set of general conditions of sale will cover all the principal elements of the transaction, so that uncertainties are avoided. The parties' respective duties as concern the payment mechanism, transport contract and insurance responsibilities, inter alia, will all be clearly detailed in the contract. The following key clauses should be included in international contracts of sale and general conditions of sale: ${\bullet}$ preamble ${\bullet}$ identification of parties ${\bullet}$ description of goods ${\bullet}$ price and payment conditions ${\bullet}$ delivery periods and conditions ${\bullet}$ inspection of the goods - obligations and limitations ${\bullet}$ quantity or quality variations in the products delivered ${\bullet}$ reservation of title and passing of property rights ${\bullet}$ transfer of risk - how accomplished ${\bullet}$ seller's warranties and buyer's complaints ${\bullet}$ assignment of rights ${\bullet}$ force majeure clause and hardship clause ${\bullet}$ requirement that amendments and modifications be in writing ${\bullet}$ choice of law ${\bullet}$ choice of dispute resolution mechanism Under most systems of law, a party can be excused from a failure to perform a contract obligation which is caused by the intervention of a totally unforeseeable event, such as the outbreak of war, or an act of God such as an earthquake or hurricane. Under the American commercial code (UCC) the standard for this relief is one of commercial impracticability. In contrast, many civil law jurisdictions apply the term force majeure to this problem. Under CISG, the standard is based on the concept of impediments to performance. Because of the differences between these standards, parties might be well advised to draft their own force majeure, hardship, or excusable delays clause. The ICC publication, "Force Majeure and Hardship" provides a sample force majeure clause which can be incorporated by reference, as well as a hardship clause which must be expressly integrated in the contract. In addition, the ICC Model provides a similar, somewhat more concise formulation of a force majeure clause. When the seller wishes to devise his own excusable delays clause, he will seek to anticipate in its provision such potential difficulties as those related to obtaining government authorisations, changes in customs duties or regulations, drastic fluctuations in labour, materials, energy, or transportation prices, etc.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.61-85
• /
• 2008

Bills of lading are crucial in international sales on shipment terms since they guard buyers against loss of or damage to the goods in transit by giving them the rights against carriers. A bill of lading, as document of title, gives the buyer the right to demand physical possession of the goods from the carrier and enables the buyer who is in possession of damaged or short-delivered goods to sue the carrier. In this context the buyer in sales on CIF or CFR terms or FOB terms with additional services benefits from the bill of lading which functions as a receipt of goods and a evidence of the terms of the contract of carriage. Protection of such buyer's interests can be provided in the sale contract through appropriate express or implied terms on the seller's documentary obligations: Which transport document, a bill of lading or a sea waybill, is required? Who should be named as the consignee in the transport document and, in case of bill of lading, by whom should the bill be endorsed? What should be stated in the bill of lading for the quantity of the goods? How about a bill of lading that contains so called "unknown clause"? How many bills of lading for the entire contract goods should be tendered? Can a bill of lading stating that the goods have been shipped in apparent good order and condition also state that the goods were damaged after shipment? This paper seeks to provide answers for these particular questions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2009

This paper deals with disputes incurred from the CISG provisions in relation with the conformity of goods with a view to finding the general way of approach made by the court and arbitration tribunal in the case laws for the interpretation of CISG based on 6(six) cases thereon. Throughout this study, it has been noted that the German Supreme Court devoted most in creating the general principle of CISG interpretation in relation with national compulsory law of regulation applicable on the conformity of goods. It was New Zealand mussels case in which the German supreme court decided that the exporting country's compulsory law of regulation would be applied in determining the conformity of goods. Furthermore, German supreme court added that CISG does not place an obligation on the exporter to supply goods, which conform to all statutory or other public provisions in force in the import state unless the same provisions exist in the export State as well, or the importer informed the exporter about such provisions existing in the import state, or the exporter had knowledge of the provisions due to special circumstances. It is stipulated in CISG that the goods conform with contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used. When questions arise concerning matters governed by the CISG that are not expressly defined in the CISG, the question is to be settled in conformity with general principles on which the convention is based. Only when such a general principle cannot be found may the tribunal turn to other sources such as UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law and Lex Mercatoria, etc. Interpretation of CISG should be autonomous, in the sense that it should not depend on principles and concepts derived from any national legal system. Even where a CISG rule is directly inspired by domestic law, the court should not fall back on its domestic law, but interpret the rule by reference to the CISG with a view to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.

• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2005년도 후기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.92-93
• /
• 2005

A contract for the shipbuilding is usually a complicated and involves statement of rights, obligations and responsibilities which each party agrees vis-a vis the other. The ultimate purpose of the contract is the sale and transfer of the finished ship by the builder to the buyer. Contracts for the construction and sale of ships are categorized as contracts for the sale of goods under English, United States, Germany and some countries law. On the other hand, The shipbuilding contract may be classified, not as a contract of sale but as a contract for work and materials under Korea, Japan and some countries law. Especially, most of countries are now well settled with regard to liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical injury and on the other for pure economic loss to remote owners of chattels. Where there is either a breach of contractual warranty or an implied warranty, there may be admiralty jurisdiction, depending once again on the situs of the event and its relationship to traditional maritime activity. Contract principles will be applied to the first type of warranty and tort principles will be applied to the second. First of all, this thesis is dealt with the contents of contract under English Law. Secondly, this thesis is analysed into the liability of shipbuilder in Products Liability under English, American and Korean Law comparisons. In conclusion, the author tries to give some suggestions as countermeasures of Products Liability to the shipbuilder in Korea.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제10권3호
• /
• pp.143-162
• /
• 2008

The Title 19 of the U.S. Code covers custom duties and is the heart of international trade regulation in the U.S.. Among the provisions in Title 19, is Chapter 4, the Tariff Act of 1930. Under U.S. Antidumping duty law, dumping occurs when `subject merchandise' is imported into the U.S. and sold at less than `fair value.' The administration of U.S. Antidumping duty law is shared between the Department of Commerce('Commerce') and International Trade Commission('USITC'). The U.S. Court of International Trade ("CIT") and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") decided the review of antidumping duty ("AD") determinations and administrative review results issued by the Commerce and the USITC, as well as the review of countervailing duty ("CVD") decisions. In Eurodif S.A. v. United States, the CAFC considered the important issue of whether the antidumping and countervailing duty laws apply to sales and purchases of services--in this case, the sale or purchase of enrichment services. Although the federal courts had considered the issue of whether a sale of enrichment services constitutes a sale of goods, the issue had never arisen in the context of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Also this is the first time that the Supreme Court has ever agreed to consider an antidumping case.