• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2003

English law accepts the basic principle of freedom of contract that the parties should be free to agree on any terms that they like unless their agreement is illegal or otherwise contrary to public policy because it infringes some public interest. On the other hand, it has been limited for hundreds of years on the basis that certain contract terms, particularly in standard form, may alter a distribution of risks that the customer would reasonably intended. The alteration may often result from his simple ignorance caused by either lack of opportunity to become aware of clauses or inability to understand their full potential implications. In addition, it may also result from disparity in bargaining power which does not allow the customer to look after their own interests even if he is fully aware of the unacceptable clauses. In response to this problem, English law has employed both judicial and statutory intervention techniques to control unfair contract terms. This study describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms, particularly, in standard form, in order to provide legal advice to our sellers residing either in UK or in Korea who plan to enter into UK markets. It also attempts to explore any problem in the existing double legislations of UCTA and UTCCR and put forward future direction of English law in light of the Draft Unfair Terms Bill which was currently proposed by the Law Commissioners. The main concern of this paper will be confined to some of the various aspects of both judicial and statutory control of unfair contract terms in English law which may draw our attention in terms of domestic or international business sales.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2006

This article primarily concerns the various aspects of the rules to control express terms particularly in standard form which seek to absolve either wholly or in part from the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. It describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms. In this analysis, it places the following questions; first, whether each jurisdiction treats the seller's liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity as mandatory rules, second, if it does, to what extent it is treated so and third, if not, in what way it controls the seller's attempt to exclude or restrict his liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity. In addition, it attempts to compare the rules under English law with those under Korean law and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. In an attempt to evaluate them, it asks the question of whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. The evaluation is based upon the idea that the problems of fairness associated with the use of standard terms occur where the customer is unfairly taken by surprise due to his ignorance of the terms, or where even if he knows of the substance of the terms and objects to it, he is met with a take-it-or-leave-it situation.