• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 2016

Article 77 of CISG requires an aggrieved party, the promisee, claiming damages to take reasonable measures to mitigate losses. The reasonable measures required hereunder are limited to those that can be expected under the circumstances having regard to the principle of good faith. When taking such measures, the aggrieved party must do so within a reasonable time under the circumstances. The expenses incurred in taking such measures are recoverable from the promisor. If the aggrieved party fails to do so, the damages recoverable from the promisor are reduced in the amount the loss that should have been mitigated. The aggrieved party's duty to mitigate damages applies to claim for damages only. That is, the violation of this duty should not be invoked against other remedies available under CISG, such as the right to claim specific performance, the right to claim for the price or the right of reduction of price. In practice, under the provision of article 77, the aggrieved party, the seller or the buyer, is often required to enter into a substitute transaction as a measure to mitigate losses and many cases involving a substitute transaction are internationally reported. Therefore this paper intends to provide a certain understanding of the aggrieved party's duty to take measures to mitigate losses based on such cases reported.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.251-293
• /
• 2002

The study is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers defective goods or documents of three legal systems; the CISG, English law and Korean law. The purposes underlying this study are twofold. The first is to clarify the current position as to the right of withholding performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective goods or documents in Korean law, CISG and English law so that it may assist the parties in drafting the buyer's right to withhold performance in their own contract. The second is to compare the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and to evaluate the rules in light of the practical functions and benefits of the right to withhold performance and the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It shows that each jurisdiction does not have any provision or case law specifically dealing with the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers the goods which are defective in terms of quality or quantity. The absence of such provision or case in each jurisdiction has resulted in either disputes or uncertainty. However, the study executed in light of the primary functions and benefits of the right in practice and the discipline of comparative law reveals that, first, the view in English law which is against recognizing the right may not be justified when one considers the practical importance of having the right and the position taken by the CISG as a well developed and modernized law, second, the view in Korean law which argues that the principle of specific goods dogma on which it is based is extended even to substitutable or repairable goods cannot be also justified on the ground of one's ordinary expectation and the position under the CISG and English law which imposes a contractual duty to deliver non-defective goods on the seller insofar as the buyer's payment is deemed to be made in exchange for the seller's delivery of non-defective goods and they are substitutable or repairable. Regarding the right to withhold performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective documents, the study shows that the relatively detailed rules in English law may be utilized as a guideline to fill the gap in the CISG and Korean law in terms of the practicability and appropriateness to govern documentary sales. Furthermore, it is found that the position in English law which confers on the buyer the right to withhold performance for a trivial defect in documents may be unreasonable in terms of one's need to enable justice to be done in individual cases.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2015

A party who relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from the breach. Appropriate measures are those aimed at lessing the loss as far as reasonably possible. Such measures will typically be a resale of the goods by the seller or a cover purchase by the buyer. The measures the injured party is expected to take in order to mitigate the loss must be reasonable in the circumstances. Article 77 will be applied to the difference between the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated under Article 77. A reduction of damages is the only remedy available to the party in breach in cases covered by Article 77. If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. If goods dispatched to the buyer have been placed at his disposal at their destination and he exercises the right to reject them, he must take possession of them on behalf of the seller. Article 86(1) requires that the buyer manifest his intention at the moment of receipt of the goods. Article 86(2) envisages that the goods have been dispatched to the buyer and that they have been placed at his disposal at their destination. Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person. It is not necessary that the warehouse by public, or that it be a general warehouse for storage. A party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with articles 86 may sell them by any appropriate means taking possession of the goods or in taking them back or in paying the price or the cost of preservation. If the goods are subject to rapid deterioration or their preservation world involve unreasonable expense, a party who is bound to preserve the goods must take reasonable measures to sell them. 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. According to Article 88(2), the party who wishes to sell must give notice to the other party of such intention, to the extent possible.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2013

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.117-142
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to examine the basic principles for the examination of documents in terms of the basic duty to examine the documents, the time allowed to the banks to examine the documents, linkage among the documents, the originality of documents and their issuers, and the rejection formula of documents. Further this author would look at the changes of particular transport document including bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading and so on. From the seller's perspective, the changes of the principles and individual documents under UCP600 are the most important in the sense that they affect the criteria against which the payment is made. The major changes include the omission of the phrase "with reasonable care", in terms of the basic examination principles, substitute the phrase "five banking days following the day of presentation" for the phrase "reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking days following the days of receipt of documents", introduce the new wording about the linkage between the documents tendered, and make clear the meaning of the originality of documents as well as the rejection formula. For transport documents, even though dealing with bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading, transport document covering at least two different modes of transport, freight-forwarder bill of lading and freight collect transport documents, this paper focuses on the "transhipment" of bill of lading and the definition of charter-party bill of lading. Thus, UCP has been changed several times to reflect the new banking customs and practice. It, however, would not answer every questions which users and banks will raise. These questions may be best answered in the particular underlying contract. The UCP are necessary but not a sufficient instrument for the smooth operation of an international trade transaction. The rules are now out: it remains to be seen what the players do with it.