• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the review of buyer's remedy resulting from the breach of seller's duty in contracts for the international sale of goods focusing on UNCCIS, 1980 and the problems and suggestions of proper ideas for solving the problems. First problem on the buyer's remedy is related to the breach of seller's duty on del ivory of the contracted goods. When seller has failed to deliver the contracted goods to buyer within the stipulated periods, buyer can treat the contract as avoided and claim damages from seller. By the way, since UNCCIS does not provide any stipulation on the time of buyer's avoidance of the contract, buyer can delay the time of avoidance when the price of contracted goods is rising rapidly and enlarge the amount of damages, Since this stipulation is clearly unreasonable, proper solutions are required for UNCCIS. Second problem is related to the breach of seller's duty on deliver of goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packged in the manner required by the contract. When seller has failed to deliver goods which are confirm with the contract, buyer may have one of the two rights of damages and the price reduction according to UNCCIS provided that he does not choose the avoidance. But, since the character and position of the price reduction as a buyer's remedy are not sufficient solutions, more detailed review on this point is required. Third, Seller's duty to provide documents is very important for overseas trade, but UNCCIS does not provide any specific buyer's remedy in comparison with the other remedy and also does not provide any stipulation on the Letter of Credit which have important roles for a device of setting payment in overseas trade. This means that trade customs and practice have not sufficiently reflected in UNCCIS. As the problems mentioned above may decrease the evaluation of buyer's remedy in UNCCIS and, furthermore, that of UNCCIS itself, proper solutions on these points are needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.37
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2008

This study primarily concerns the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(1980) in comparison with the Draft Principles of European Sales Law. It describes and analyzes the provisions of the CISG as to the seller's duty, focusing on main controversial issues among scholars in their application. It also attempts to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the Draft PESL and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intends to insert the CISG or the Draft PESL in their contract as a governing law. The comparative study particularly focuses on the following aspects; first, requirements for conformity with the contract which deals with the concept of conformity with the contract, contractual requirements agreed between contractual parties, and implied requirements otherwise not agreed between contractual parties, second, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract, third, exclusions of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 2017

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the seller's liability for non-conforming goods of four legal systems under the CISG and the CESL. A purpose of this study is to examine all the rules as to, first, the concept and the nature of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, second, the contents of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, third, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract and the cases where the seller is exempted from his liability for non-conforming goods. Another purpose is to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the CESL, and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to use one of those regimes in their contract as a governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• 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.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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.83-100
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to provide the most accurate analysis possible regarding the buyer's duty to examine goods and give notice, or the like, of non-conformity to the seller under Belgian law in comparison with the CISG and CESL. Even though Belgium is the capital of the Europe Union, most of its laws remain untranslated in English. Therefore, this study may offer key insights into the specificities of Belgian law, which while being derived from the French Napoleon Code has its own practices coded into its Case Law. It also makes a comparison with the new CESL and CISG in order to evaluate their respective influence on national law and other infructuous attempts to harmonize Belgian law for the internal European market. Evaluating the differences of each system in the spirit of comparative law may be a good basis for the development of laws in each jurisdiction.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.49-74
• /
• 2012

This study primarily concerns the seller's right to require performance under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(1980) (here-in-after the CISG). By virtue of art. 62 of the CISG, the seller may require to pay the purchase price, take delivery or perform his other obligations. The right is known as a process whereby the aggrieved seller obtains as nearly as possible the actual subject-matter of his bargain, as opposed to compensation in money for failing to obtain it. The study describes and analyzes the provisions of the CISG as to the seller's right to require performance, focusing on the questions of what the seller can require the buyer to perform, and what the restrictions of his right to require performance are. It particularly deals with main controversial issues among scholars as to whether art. 28 of the CISG is applied to the seller's action for the price and so that it opens the door domestic traditions and national preconditions that prevent judges and enforcement authorities in some contracting states, and whether the seller's to require performance is subject to the duty to mitigate loss within the meaning of art. 77 of the CISG. On the basis of the analysis, the study puts forward the author's arguments criticizing various the existing scholars' views. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when it is expected that the CISG is applicable as the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2) which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods.

• 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.