• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

The remedies available to a seller that has suffered a breach of contract by the buyer are addressed in Section III of Chapter III of Part III. The first provision in the section, 61, catalogues those remedies and authorizes an aggrieved seller to resort to them. The remaining provisions of the section address particular remedies or prerequisites to remedies. The subject matter of the current section remedies for breach of contract by the buyer obviously parallels that of Section III of Chapter II of Part III remedies for breach of contract by the seller. Many individual provisions within these sections form matched pairs. Thus 61, which catalogs the seller's remedies, which catalogs the buyer's remedies. Other provisions in the current section that have analogues in the section on buyer's remedies include 62, seller's right to require buyer's performance 63, seller's right to fix an additional period for buyer to perform and 64, seller right to avoid the contract. As was the case with the provisions on buyers' remedies, the articles governing sellers' remedies operate in conjunction with a variety of provisions outside the current section. Thus the seller's right to require performance by the buyer is subject to the rule in 28 relieving a court from the obligation to order specific performance in circumstances in which it would not do so under its own law. The authorization in 61 for a seller to claim damages for a buyer's breach operates in connection with 74-76, which specify how damages are to be measured. 49, stating when an aggrieved seller can avoid the contract, is part of a network of provisions that address avoidance, including the definition of fundamental breach, the requirement of notice of avoidance, provisions governing avoidance in certain special circumstances, measures of damages available only if the contract has been avoided and the provisions of Section V of Part III, Chapter V on effects of avoidance.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

The seller and the buyer write down the agreed details in the trade contract as trade contract clauses. In the case where a letter of credit is agreed to be the payment condition, the buyer shall open a letter of credit to the seller with the shipping date specified in the trade contract through its bank. In this case, the legal relationship between the performance date of the trade contract and the shipment date of the letter of credit, the change of the performance date of the trade contract due to the change of the trade contract and the change of the shipment date specified in the letter of credit, the seller's letter of credit A problem arises in the legal interpretation of the approval period and the change request period. Therefore, this paper analyzed the precedents of the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court and the Seoul High Court related to these legal issues. The performance date of a trade contract is the seller's delivery date and the buyer's payment date. In the letter of credit transaction, the date of performance of the trade contract is regarded as the date of shipment and the date of negotiation of documents specified in the letter of credit. The seller must decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days after receiving the letter of credit from the buyer. After this period has elapsed, the seller cannot refuse the letter of credit. However, if the buyer is unable to decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days due to reasons attributable to the buyer, the delivery date specified in the letter of credit will be extended. If the seller requests an amendment to the letter of credit, the buyer must accept it and open the letter of credit the seller desires to the seller. If the buyer refuses the seller's request to change the letter of credit, company A has the obligation to change and reopen the letter of credit as requested by company B. Expect by agreeing on the quotation As it is a fundamental breach of contract stipulated in Article 25 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, company B can cancel the trade contract and claim damages from company A. Compensation for damages caused by Company A's breach of the trade contract shall be an amount equal to the loss suffered by Company B as a result of the breach, including loss of profits.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.3-38
• /
• 2007

As we know, D-terms which are constituted with DAF delivered the goods in a border place, DES delivered the goods on board a vessel at a vessel specified port on the buyer's side, DEQ delivered the goods on the quay on the buyer's side as the specified place, DDU and DDP delivered the good at the stipulated place at the agreed place or point, mean arrival contracts. DAF is designed mainly for railway carriage, DES and DEQ are designed mainly for vessel shipment, DDU and DDP are designed mainly for multimodal transportation. In spite of their original purpose of revision. They have in themselves many problems on notable points on application in practice. Therefore, in order to magnify their use, through revision of Incoterms, DAF is restricted to railway carriage, DES and DEQ are restricted to be used only for charter shipments. Particularly transport documents which seller should supply the buyer with under DDU and DDP are documents for ownership and possession rights to the goods loaded when executed in negotiable form like as CIF.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.17 no.5
• /
• pp.205-221
• /
• 2022

In this study, the authors investigated the effect of salesperson's Selling Influence Tactics (SIT) on customers' psychological obligation, trust in salespersons and repurchase intentions in the offline cosmetics purchase channel. In addition, we examined the moderating effect of service quality perceived by customers. To this end, a survey was conducted on 298 customers who had purchased cosmetics through the offline sales channel, and the authors conducted hypothesis testing through a structural equation model. As a result of the study, first, among salesperson's sales influence tactics, emotional appeal tactics (H1a), customer ingratiation tactics (H1d), and personal appeal tactics (H1e) were found to affect the psychological obligation of customers, and emotional appeal tactics (H2a), rational persuasion tactics (H2b), information provision tactics (H2c), and customer ingratiation tactics (H2d) were found to affect trust in salespeople. Third, it was found that the psychological obligation did not have a positive (+) effect on the customer's repurchase intention, and the customer's trust in the salesperson had a positive (+) effect on the repurchase intention. Third, perceived service quality showed a significant moderating effect between psychological obligation and repurchase intention, trust in salesperson and repurchase intention. In previous studies on salesperson's Selling Influence Tactics (SIT), many studies examined salesperson's Selling Influence Tactics (SIT) by specifying sub-variables in a limited way, and studies confirming marketing factors such as repurchase intention were also insufficient. Therefore, the results of the empirical research confirmed based on this study are expected to help the standard or direction of the salesperson's Selling Influence Tactics (SIT) in future studies. In addition, this study describes implications for providing help in employee education and management for small business owners who manage and operate offline cosmetics stores, and sales strategies that should be strategically established to improve perceived service quality for customers.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.8 no.11
• /
• pp.286-295
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the relationships between brand satisfaction and store loyalty by examining the role of brand trust, store satisfaction and store trust in determining store loyalty in retail service firms. The results of the study are as follows: First, in case of relation exchange consumers, which are characterized by cooperative actions and mutual adjustment of both buyer and seller, brand satisfaction has a positive influence on brand trust, brand trust has a positive influence on store trust, and then store trust a strong positive influence on store loyalty. That is, store loyalty can be build up by combined benefits both brand trust and store trust in relation exchange consumers. Second, in another case of transaction exchange consumer, which are discrete buyer-seller exchange of commodity or performance with minimal personal relationships and no anticipation or obligation of future exchange, brand satisfaction has a positive influence on store satisfaction, and then store satisfaction has a direct influence on store loyalty. So, retailers have to developing strong brands which could help ensure both satisfaction and loyalty.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2011

In this article, the author have studied on main revisions and some recommendations of the Incoterms(R) 2010. Main revisions are as belows. 1. Two new Incoterms rules -DAT and DAP- have replaced the Incoterms 2000 rules DAF, DES, DEQ and DDU. 2. New classification of the Incoterms(R) 2010 are adopted. First class is Rules for any mode or modes of transport(EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAT, DAP and DDP belong to this class.) and second class is rules for sea and inland waterway transport(FAS, FOB, CFR and CIF belong to this class.). 3. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules formally recognizes that they are available for application to both international and domestic sale contracts. 4. The Guidance Notes and Introduction are not part of the actual Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 5. Under the FOB, CFR and CIF, all mention of the ship's rail as the point of delivery has been omitted in preference for the goods being delivered when they are "on board" the vessel. 6. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules include the obligation to 'procure goods shipped' as an alternative to the obligation to ship goods in the relevant Incoterms rules. 7. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules give electronic means of communication the same effect as paper communication. 8. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules have allocated obligations between the buyer and seller to obtain or to render assistance in obtaining security-related clearances. such as chain-of custody information. Some recommendations are as belows. 1. The parties must incorporate the Incoterms(R) 2010 rules into their contract of sale. 2. The parties must choose the appropriate Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 3. Specify the place or port as precisely as possible in their contract of sale. 4. Remember that Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not give the parties a complete contract of sale. 5. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not prohibit alteration of Incoterms rule, but there are dangers in so doings. In order to avoid any unwelcome surprises, the parties would need to make the intended effect of such alterations extremely clear in their contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.95-124
• /
• 2012

Referring to Buyer's obligations, the Buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract. There are vital importances to the Buyer's Fundamental Breach. The legal effects of a breach of contract do not depend on the nature of the obligation broken, but on the consequences of the breach the detriment to the other party. The obligations mentioned to Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. They include a number of different acts which could be seen as the subject-matter of different obligations. CISG gives further details for the payment of the price in Articles 54 to 59 and for taking delivery in Article 60. 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. For the understanding of Buyer's Fundamental Breach, We need to search the Cases referring to the breach of buyer's main obligations.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2003

The CISG approach was intended to make the remedial system clear, but produced ambiguity, and complexity. The CISG does not differentiate between main, auxiliary and participatory obligations. There is no distinction between breaches of main or breaches of auxiliary obligations, rather, a distinction is made between fundamental and other breaches of contract. Articles 25 gives the definition of fundamental breach of contract. This concept is the essential of avoidance and remedial system in the CISG. This concept, however, is ambiguous. The fact that the fundamentality of a breach of contract in many cases is the condition for an avoidance of contract, is expression of the trend of the CISG to preserve contracts, which I consider as essential in international trade. The elements which define a substantial detriment are extremely complex. It will become obvious that the relevant detriment is not a static element, but in many instances occurs only when the breach of contract continues. It should be added that it is the circumstances of each individual case which are relevant. It is to be stressed that a fundamental breach of contract must constitute also a non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.