• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.79-99
• /
• 2011

This study describes the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract. The purpose of this study is twofold: to analyze the seller's principal duty, comparing the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods(CISG) with Sale of Goods Act(SGA) and to provide legal and practical advice to contracting parties who consider CISG or SGA as a governing law. This paper first considers the requirements for the conformity with the contract, which means contractual requirements agreed between parties and implied requirements not agreed between parties. Following this, the exclusion of the seller's duty to deliver the goods required by the contract is described. Finally, this paper ends up giving contracting parties legal and practical advice.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.83-112
• /
• 2003

This study primarily concerns the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, focusing on the newly amended rules of the Sale of Goods Act(1979). It describes and analyzes the provisions of Regulations 2002 in a comparative way in order to provide legal advice to the sellers who plans to enter into English consumer markets. It also attempts to compare the rules of Regulations 2002 with those of CISG and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of Law and Economics the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may enhence 'efficiency', serving the goal of reducing negotiation costs through providing a set of default terms, and through imposing an efficient solution which may assist value maximizing exchange where disputes arise.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.265-286
• /
• 2009

Dumping describes the practice of international price discrimination whereby a producer or exporter sells merchandise in an export market at less than fair value. The U.S. antidumping statutory framework is embodied in the Tariff Act of 1930. The Act states that "dumping" refers to the sale or likely sale of goods at less than fair value. 19 U.S.C. $\S$ 1677(34). The Commerce Department and the Commission are jointly responsible for administering the antidumping law. Commerce determines whether foreign merchandise is being sold in the United States at less than fair value, and the Commission determines whether a domestic industry producing a product like the imported merchandise has been materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of that product. Recently, in U.S. v. Eurodif, the Supreme Court held the question whether the Commerce can reasonably determin that foreign merchandise has been sold within the meaning of the antidumping law in U.S.. Should 19 U.S.C. Section 1673, which calls for "antidumping" duties on foreign goods, but not services, that sell at less than fair value in the U.S., apply to imported low enriched uranium? Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Department's view of imported low enriched uranium, as the sale of goods rather than services, was permissible. It reasoned that, since 19 U.S.C. Section 1673 did not specify whether it applied to the production of low enriched uranium, it was left to the reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Department to determine. Accordingly, the Court found the Commerce Department interpreted the statute reasonably.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.2
• /
• pp.29-52
• /
• 2017

This research employed a comparative legal analysis to explore the rules of CISG, Incoterms 2010, Chinese Contract Law, and Korean Civil Act with precedent researches and present customs in the international sale of goods. The results of this study show that there are some differences in the provisions of seller's delivery obligation to those regulations, such as the time and place of delivery goods, the conformity of goods on the contract, and delivery of documents. Therefore, the parties of contract, especially between Korean and Chinese traders, must be aware of the differences in the provisions of those selected regulations in order to reduce disputes between them, out of or in relation to or in connection with their sales contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.74
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2017

The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. Article 38 lays down a fundamental principle that requires the buyer to examine quickly the goods delivered by the seller. Article 38 (1) provides that the examination be made within as short a period as practicable in the circumstances. The goods have to be examined within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The rule is based on the fundamental idea of reasonableness, meaning that the buyer must examine the goods as soon as reasonably possible. It may be said that the buyer should act reasonably fast. Article 38 (2), (3) concerns sales involving carriage of the goods, where the seller's obligation to deliver consists in handing the goods over to the first carrier for transmission to the buyer. In this case the buyer is generally able to examine the goods only after they have come to destination. Article 38 (3) takes into account the case where the buyer redirects the goods in transit or re-dispatches them to another destination. Redirection in transit occurs when the destination is changed before the goods are received by the buyer. The buyer could re-dispatch the goods without having them unloaded, or re-dispatch them through another carrier.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.28
• /
• pp.3-36
• /
• 2005

Most legal systems provides the aggrieved buyer with a right to put an end to the contract. Unlike Civil Law systems, the right is rather complicated and uncertain in Common Law systems because they do not sharply distinguish between a refusal which amounts merely to a defence in the nature of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, and one which is intended to abrogate the aggrieved party's obligations completely and to seek restitution of what he has already performed. That is, they do not draw any sharp distinction between the right of rejection or revocation and the right to put an end to the contract. This explains why the right to put an end to the contract under Civil Law systems are often compared with the right of rejection or revocation under Common Law systems in most academic papers. Having said that, this article describes and analyzes in detail the relevant UCC rules to the buyer's right of rejection and revocation, particularly the rules on the requirements for the right of rejection or revocation. This is for the purpose of providing legal advice to our sellers residing either in U.S.A. or in Korea who plan to enter into U.S.A markets and take academics' interest in the buyer's right which is deemed to be unique compared to the Civil Law systems. In addition, the study attempts to compare the rules as to the right of rejection and revocation under the UCC with those of English law which are stipulated mainly in the Sale of Goods Act (1979) in a statutory form. This may help one better to understand the rules of the UCC which are mostly originated with English law and to find in what way the rules of the UCC depart from those of English law.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.25-52
• /
• 2009

An acceptance is effected by a statement or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent. Silence or inactivity does not in itself amount to acceptance. An acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reaches the offeror. It uses in stating rules on whether an acceptance is too late to form a contract and an offeree may withdraw an acceptance after transmission. The offeree may indicate assent by performing an act such as one relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment of the price without notice to the offeror. The acceptance by action also is to be performed within the time fixed between the parties or within a resonable time. However, an oral offer must be accepted immediately by an offeree. After an acceptance by action, the offeree avoid revocation of an offer by giving the offeror prompt notice to that effect. Even if a reply an offer contains additions, limitations or other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counter offer, the reply to an offer contains additional and different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance unless the offeror objects to the discrepancy or to that effect. Additional or different terms relating to the price, payment, quality & quantity of the goods, time & place of delivery, a party's liability or the settlement of disputes are considered to materially alter the terms of the offer.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.18
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

The parties in International Sale of Goods including Korean Firms Should note ; The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and CISG. The obligations mentioned in Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. The buyer has to take delivery at the respective place within a reasonable period after this communication since he cannot be required to take delivery immediately. Refusing to take delivery in case of delay not constituting a ground for avoiding the contract makes no sense, since this would lead to even later delivery. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. International sales contracts frequently prescribe that the buyer has to act in advance, that is before the seller starts the process of delivery. Such acts may be either advance payments or the procurement of securities for payment as letters of credit guarantees. On the other hand, The seller deliver the goods hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and CISG. The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgement. The buyer may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. The seller may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the buyer to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract.