• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

본고는 국제물품매매계약에 있어 매수인의 계약위반에 따라 피해를 입은 매도인의 구제수단을 다루고 있는 CISG 제3편 제3장 제3절(제61조 내지 제65조)을 중심으로 매도인의 구제권 일반과 이행청구권, 이행을 위한 추가기간의 지정, 계약해제권 및 물품명세의 확정권에 관한 규정내용을 연구범위로 두고, 당해 조문해석과 적용에 따른 평가에 기하여, 법적 시사점과 유의점을 도출한 논문이다. 그 내용은 우선, 제61조는 매수인의 계약위반에 기한 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 구제수단을 규정하고 있고, 나머지 조항에서는 특별구제 또는 구제의 전제조건을 규정하고 있다. 본조는 매수인의 계약위반에 관하여 매도인이 선택할 수 있는 일반적인 구제방법을 다루고 있다. 본조에서 매도인은 제62조 내지 제65조에 규정된 권리를 행사할 수 있다고 규정하고는 있으나, 이는 독립적으로 그 조항들에게 법적 효력을 부여하고 있는 규정이라고는 볼 수 없다. 제62조는 매수인의 의무이행을 청구하는 권리에 대한 제한을 두고 있는데, 그 내용은 매도인이 이미 자신의 의무의 이행을 청구하는 권리와 양립되지 않는 어느 구제방법을 채택한 경우와, 매도인이 매수인에게 의무이행을 청구할 권리가 있다고 규정하고 있음에도 불구하고, 국내법에 의해 특정이행을 주문하지 않는 상황에서 매도인을 대신하여 매수인에게 특정이행을 청구할 필요가 없는 경우로 대별된다. 제63조는 매도인은 매수인으로 하여금 그 의무를 이행할 수 있도록 하기 위하여 추가기간을 지정할 수 있음을 규정하고 있고, 제64조는 매수인이 하나 또는 그 이상의 의무를 위반하는 경우와 중대한 계약위반에 기하여 매도인이 계약을 해제할 수 있는 상황을 다루고 있다. 아울러, 제65조는 매수인이 합의한 기간 내에 또는 매도인으로부터 요구를 받은 후 상당한 기간 내에 합의된 특징을 확정하지 않는 경우 발생될 수 있는 문제를 다루고 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제40권
• /
• pp.3-30
• /
• 2008

This article attempts to describe and analyze the rules on the buyer's remedies for lack of conformity under PELS. It shows that such remedies under the PELS operate in a two-tier remedial scheme which is alien to both domestic and international legal systems. That is, repair and replacement take the position of primary remedy, whereas termination, price reduction and damages are secondary remedies which are available only where the primary remedies cannot be invoked. Notwithstanding its superiority, the PELS have some drawbacks in several aspects. First, the PELS seems to place its focus on the factor of cost except the other factors, for instance, the significance of the lack of conformity, when one decides whether the first tier remedies cause the seller unreasonable effort or expense. It is argued that the factors can be considered by referring to art. 1:302 PECL. Second, the PELS does not expressively provide any exclusion of the seller's right to choose between repair or replacement on the basis of unreasonable uncertainty in reimbursing the expenses advanced by the buyer. It argues that if there is such uncertainty, it should be regarded as causing the buyer an unreasonable inconvenience under art. 4:204(1). Third, the PELS does not seem to properly reflect the consumer's interests in that most consumers prefer to have the absolute right of termination as against the commercial sellers who have a relatively stronger bargaining position. The reasons for that is that there is a big hurdle, i.e., a hierarchy of remedies, to be overcome by the consumer to battle with the commercial seller, and that unavoidable vagueness in defining a minor lack of conformity has been often used against the consumer, but in favour of the commercial seller with a strong bargaining position.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제50권
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of LD Clause against the seller's breach of contract in connection with delivering the goods in the international sales contract, and international guarantee system using standby L/C or demand guarantee. For this purpose, the author, first, considered the outline of the buyer's remedies in cases that the seller had not performed his obligations in contract and the difficulties in the buyer's remedies. As alternatives for overcoming the difficulties, this author recommended the LD Clauses (Liquidated Damage Clauses) based on ICC Model International Sales Contract, and explained each Model Clause. To enhance the feasibility of LD Clause, this author suggested the guarantee system, like the standby L/C or demand guarantee. But these guarantee systems have several limitations in practical use. Thus, these guarantee systems would greatly contribute to Korean exportation in the future. The reason is that the Korean export structure would be more complex and the period of sales contract would be longer and longer, which result to in long-terms supply contracts. These changes would require the guarantee much urgently.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2009

On April 11, 1980, the "United Nations on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" ("CISG") was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and approved by a diplomatic conference in Vienna providing uniform law for international sales of goods. It took effect as of March 1, 2005, in Korea. It is set forth on the seller's remedies for breach by the buyer Section III (Art. 61 - 65) under the CISG. In this study, the focus is only on the seller's notice fixing additional final period for performance (Art. 63) and the right to avoid the contract (Art. 64), with examination on some relevant foreign arbitral awards rendered by the ICC and the CIETAC together. Article 63 provides that the seller may fix an additional period of time for reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligation. It was found from the above arbitral awards that the concept of 'reasonable length' should be decided on a case-by-case basis, given the specific circumstances in the case [Art. 63(1)]. It is provided that unless the seller has received a notice that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract in accordance with Article 63(2). Article 64(1) provides the means and grounds for avoidance of the contract, which can be avoided 1) when the breach of the buyer amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or 2) when the additional period of time is fixed by the seller, unless the buyer declares that he will not perform so within the period of fixed time. As we examined in the above arbitral awards, it was held that the contract is avoided when the seller sends the final notice stating that he will avoid the contract, after the expiration of the additional period of time fixed by the seller in the ICC award. On the contrary, it was held that the contract should be deemed to be avoided exactly when the expiration of additional period noted in the avoidance notice is elapsed in the CIETAC award. Article 64(2) sets time limits for avoidance.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권3호
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관하여 규정하고 있는 CISG의 제30조와 34조의 내용을 무역관습인 Incoterms 및 신용장통일규칙(UCP)과 관련하여 해석하고, 서류교부의무의 위반이 매수인에게 어떤 법적 구제권을 부여하는지를 규명한다. CISG는 제 30조와 34조에 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관한 규정을 두고 있으나 서류의 종류, 서류교부 시기, 장소, 형식 등에 대해서는 별도로 규율하지 않고 계약 및 관습(usage)에 의존하고 있다. 이에 따라 계약에 명시적인 규정이 없는 경우 Incoterms와 신용장통일규칙이 협약을 보완하여 적용된다. 매도인이 계약에 적합한 서류를 정해진 시기, 장소, 형식에 따라 교부할 의무를 이행하지 않는 경우 협약의 제45조에 의해 이행청구권, 계약해제권 및 손해배상청구권 등의 구제권이 매수인에게 부여된다. 그러나 계약해제권의 경우 협약이 계약의 유지를 기본 정신으로 하고 있으므로 매우 제한적으로 인정되는 경향이 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• 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.