• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 1999

Under the CISG, there is a unequitable factor in comparing buyer's remedy with seller's remedy. In my opinion, CISG is more unequitable remedy clause than UCC or UNIDROIT principle of International Commercial Contract(1994) between seller and buyer. First, buyer who accepted defect goods must give seller notice the facts that seller delivered defect goods in two years after accepting defect goods. The cap of two year is unreasonable in a position of aggrieved buyer. This is being provided as 'within reasonable time' in UCC and there is no such provision in UNIDROIT Principle. Second, Buyer can avoid contract when seller breached fundamentally contract or seller didn't set a additional performance period about breaching of contract. Accordingly if buyer would not set a additional performance period, although seller's breachment of contract, he could not avoid the contract. Therefore, From a viewpoint of aggrieved buyer avoidable right of contract is restrainted. Third, to compare seller's remedy with buyer's, seller have more opportunity to cure breachment of contract than buyer. Under the CISG buyer is relatively placed at disadvantage in remedy of aggrieved party. In connection with remedy of aggrieved party, 'UNIDROIT principle of international commercial contracts' instead seller and buyer of aggrieved party, so there is not unequitable factor in remedy of aggrieved parties.

• 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.

• 아태비즈니스연구
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.273-290
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the buyer's right to avoid the contract under SGA and CISG. Design/methodology/approach - This paper has conducted literature reviews to analyze the right to avoid the contract of the buyer based on the comparative study. Findings - Under s. 11(3) of SGA, the breach of a condition and an intermediate which deprives the buyer substantially of the whole benefit of the contract may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. But under Art. 49 of CISG, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract where the seller's failure to performance amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. Regarding the breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG, the buyer should take into account where the seller's breach is fundamental or not. Moreover, an anticipatory breach can give rise to a right to avoid the contract. The anticipatory breach of a condition justifies termination. The breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG require an anticipatory fundamental breach of the contract. Under SGA, the buyer has to prove an anticipatory breach in fact but CISG does not require virtual certainty, which SGA has stricter criteria to assess an anticipatory breach. Research implications or Originality - Comparative study helps to understand the nature of provisions under SGA and CISG and suggests practical advice to choose applicable laws. SGA gives more certainty to classify a contractual term. In case of the breach of a condition including the anticipatory breach under SGA, the buyer does not have to ask how much serious the breach is. But CISG requires the fundamental breach of the contract, which means that the buyer has the more burden of proof compared with SGA.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2005

The buyer must pay the price under the contract and must take delivery of the goods of contract. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and such formalities under the contract. The remedial system of the rights of the seller is easier than that of the buyer, for the obligations of the former are less complicated. The seller has the right to avoid a contract provided two conditions are fulfilled : (a) the buyer must have committed a fundamental breach of contract, or (b) the additional period for performance set by the seller in the case of non-performance must have expired. A decision is more difficult to take in the case of a delay where there is no fixed-term contract, to clarify the situation the seller may set a Nachfrist. It is essential that the contracting parties in Korea should understand the provisions of CISG.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국무역상무학회 2004년도 제32회 산학협동 세미나
• /
• pp.79-104
• /
• 2004

The buyer must pay the price under the contract and must take delivery of the goods of contract. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and such formalities under the contract. The remedial system of the rights of the seller is easier than that of the buyer, for the obligations of the former are less complicated. The seller has the right to avoid a contract provided two conditions are fulfilled : (a) the buyer must have committed a fundamental breach of contract, or (b) the additional period for performance set by the seller in the case of non-performance must have expired. A decision is more difficult to take in the case of a delay where there is no fixed-term contract, to clarify the situation the seller may set a Nachfrist. It is essential that the contracting parties in Korea should understand the provisions of CISG.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• 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.

• 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.

• 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.