• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2013

The way for seller to procure the goods for selling is to produce the goods at his own factory and to buy the manufactured goods from the other company. In order to produce the goods for selling the seller have to obtain the resource from the domestic company or overseas. In the middle of producing the goods to sell, seller may breach the right of a third party based on intellectual property rights. That is to say, seller may use the machine that has not itself been patented and use a process which has been patented by a third party. Seller may manufacture the goods which themselves are subject to the third party industrial property rights. Nowadays it is stressed the importance of intellectual property rights such as a patent, brand, and design. These factors consist of the core elements of the competitiveness of the goods. Many embedded software have been used in the various sector. So the disputes regarding to the intellectual property rights is gradually increasing in number. Article 42 of CISG defines the seller's delivery obligations and liabilities in respect to third party intellectual property rights and claims. It contains a special rule for this similar kind of defective in title, which tries to provide an proper solution to the complex problems caused by such rights and claims in international transactions. When seller will apply this clause to the business fields, there are several points to which seller should give attention. First, Intellectual property is general terms in intangible property rights, encompassing both copyright and industrial property. Which matter fall within the scope of intellectual property? The scope of intellectual property can be inferred from the relevant international conventions, which are based on broad international consensus. Second, Article 42 of CISG governs the relationship between the seller and the buyer, that is to say, questions of who has to bear the risk of third party intellectual property rights. The existence of such intellectual property rights, the remedies available and the question of acquiring goods free of an encumbrances in good faith are outside the scope of the CISG. The governing law regarding to the abovementioned matters is needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2003

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's remedies where the seller delivers defective goods of four legal systems; Directive, CISG, English law and Korean law. In light of threefold main purposes of this study, it firstly attempts to describe and analyze the remedy provisions of Directive in a comparative way in order to provide legal advice to the sellers who plans to enter into English consumer markets. It shows that the two tier remedial system under Directive is not much different from the other jurisdictions, except where the right of rescission under Directive is absolute in a sense that it does not require a certain degree of seriousness of defect. Secondly, the study compares the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and evaluates the rules in light of 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 proves the followings; (1) the reluctance and uncertainty in English law of ordering specific performance based on the discretionary power does not reflect the parties' preference because the order is either uncertain or rather negative where the purchase of substitute goods elsewhere is not a satisfactory solution in many cases; (2) the position in Korean law which has no limitation on the right to require substitute goods is likely unfair in commercial sales, but justified in consumer sales; (3) the right of termination or reduction under Directive which is subject to the applicability of the right to require repair or substitute goods seems to be contrary to the consumer's preference where the defective delivery destroys the basis of trust in the quality of the seller's performance; (4) the absolute right of termination under Directive and English law seems crucial in consumer sales because they are often inferior to commercial sellers in terms of information and bargaining power; (5) the right of reduction as a self-help remedy which is absent in English law emphasizes its usefulness. Thirdly, it finds that, where CISG is deemed to fail to unify different rules on the right to require specific performance between Civil and Common law, it is attempted once again in Directive and notwithstanding their hostility to awarding the right to require specific performance in English law, Regulations 2002 expressively stipulates such right.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2010

The passing of property in goods affects contractual rights and duties. It is the point on which depend issues as diverse as the seller's entitlement to sue for the price and the incidence of risk of loss of casualty to the goods. The passing of property may also have an incidental effect on the remedies of the parties, including specific performance. But Incoterms do not deal with how the goods should reach the agreed point of delivery. While Incoterms specifically deal with questions of division of risk of loss of or damage to the goods between seller and buyer, they do not deal with property or transfer of title of the goods. Indeed, it was not even possible to agree on uniform rules on these questions in the CISG. Therefore, the parties to a contract of sale should provide for these matters themselves in the contract of sale and closely observe what the applicable law requires for the transfer of ownership to the goods and other property rights.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.