• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제26권5호
• /
• pp.88-105
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This paper studies whether economic sanctions can be used as grounds for a party to an international sales contract to get an exemption if he fails to meet his contractual obligation. Because the answer can differ depending on the governing law of the contract, this study focuses on CISG, the most widely recognized international uniform legal instrument as the governing law of the international sale of goods. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on analyzing the conditions to meet before getting an exemption under CISG. For such analysis, this paper examined various scholarly writings, cases, and hypothetical examples reflecting a wide variety of economic sanction measures. Findings - The findings of this paper are as follows. The main provision for exemption under CISG is Article 79(1), which provides for an exemption for a party that failed to perform if such failure was caused by an impediment that was uncontrollable, unforeseeable, and unavoidable; either a seller or a buyer may rely on the Article for his non-performance, delay, or defective performance. The Article is applicable not only where the economic sanction caused impossibility of performance but also where it caused hardship. The economic sanction will likely be found to be an uncontrollable impediment; however, it will be relatively more difficult to prove it to be unforeseeable or unavoidable. Originality/value - The subject of this paper is whether a party can be exempted from liability under CISG when he fails to perform his contractual obligations due to economic sanctions. Given that this issue is now actually faced by many involved in international trade, it is expected to provide practical help to practitioners and companies alike.

• 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.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제22권
• /
• pp.173-197
• /
• 2004

Letter of Credit between buyer and seller in International Trade Transaction is the means of payment which makes International Trade operate smoothly by guaranteeing an exporter against non-payment and an importer against non-delivery. Therefore, the parties to a sale apply UCP500 established by the International Chamber of Commerce, in accordance with principle of the freedom of contract among the parties concerned, to look to their own legal stability. However, we may recognize some cases to have been applied principle of faith and trust, one of the dominant principles of the civil law, by the Korean Supreme Court and other cases to have not been applied that principle by the Korean Supreme Court. The Court shall apply UCP500 strictly as long as the parties concerned adopt UCP500 in view of the legal stability. In other words, in case that the Court applies principle of faith and trust to the case related to L/C, this rule - principle of faith and trust - should apply to the subject matter which have not stipulated in UCP500 under certain restriction. We suggest keeping in mind points to korean companies as follows; First, the parties to a sale shall understand L/C basis transaction and principles related to L/C deeply. Second, the exporter shall prepare documents in compliance with L/C and fulfil his or her obligation according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract. Third, as buyer or importer, when he or she receive the shipping documents with discrepancies from the notifying bank, he or she makes him or herself clear to all the parties concerned. Fourth, as bank, she shall examine all the documents according to UCP500 and L/C related to the contract, and if any document with discrepancies, the bank, by all means, shall approach applicant first, and then decide whether to pay the credit amount to beneficiary or not to.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• pp.199-224
• /
• 2013

본고의 연구범위로서 '국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약'(CISG) 제3편 제3장 제1절은 총 7개의 조문으로 구성되어 있다. 본고의 연구결과로서 개별조항의 법적 기준에 관한 요지와 그 시사점 내지 유의점은 다음과 같다. 제53조는 본절의 개요임과 동시에 매수인의 주된 의무를 일괄하여 다루고 있는 규정이다. 본조는 CISG가 물품매매의 요건을 언급하고 있지 않음을 고려하여 제30조와 연계하여 다루어야 한다. 제54조는 계약이나 또는 적용법규에 따라 물품대금지급을 위한 매수인의 준비조치를 다루고 있는 규정으로서 본조의 의무를 위반할 경우 매도인은 제61조에 따라 구제수단을 행사할 수 있다. 다만 이러한 절차는 제71조 (1)에서 규정하고 있는 이행준비 또는 계약의 이행을 위한 행위가 아님을 유의하여야 한다. 제55조는 적용함에 있어서는 반드시 양당사자의 의사가 고려되어야 한다. 계약당사자가 물품가격을 결정하고 있는 경우 제7조의 적용순위에 따라 일반원칙 내지 국제사법이 적용될 수 있음을 유의하여야 한다. 제56조는 당사자가 물품중량의 기준을 합의해 두고 있지 않다면 포장중량을 제외한 물품의 순중량으로 물품대금을 결정하도록 규정하고 있다. 본조는 당사자 의사나 관행 또는 관습이 없는 경우에 적용되는 일반원칙이다. 제57조에 의거 당사자가 달리 합의한 바가 없다면 물품대금은 매도인의 영업소에서, 당사자가 물품의 인도 또는 서류의 교부 시에 대금을 지급하기로 합의한 경우 물품 또는 서류가 인도되는 장소에서 대금이 지급되어야 한다. 계약체결 후 영업소의 변경과 관련하여 발생한 물품대금지급에 관한 추가비용은 매도인이 부담하여야 한다. 제58조는 그 어떠한 특정한 시기에 물품대금을 지급하여야 할 의무가 없는 경우 매수인의 대금지급의 시기를 규정하고 있는 조문으로서 이 경우 본조는 제78조에 언급된 이자의 누적의 시기의 기산시점이 된다. 제59조에 따라 매수인은 그 어떠한 조건에도 구애됨이 없이 예정대로 물품대금을 지급하여야 한다. 당해 의무를 위반할 경우 매도인은 모든 구제권을 행사할 수 있다. 당해 시점 이후로 연체된 금액의 이자가 적용된다.