• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제13권2호
• /
• pp.291-319
• /
• 2004

The seller may take a warranty with respect to the goods. If they are not as warranted, they may be held liable for the breach of warranty. Even when they has not made a warranty, the law will in some instances hold them responsible as though they had made a warranty. An express warranty is a part the basis for the sale. That is, the buyer has purchased the goods on the reasonable assumption that they were as stated by the seller. When the buyer intends to use the goods for a particular or usual purpose, as contrasted with the ordinary use for which they are customarily sold, the seller makes an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for the purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and when the seller at the time of contracting knows or has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and his reliance on the seller's judgment. A merchant seller who makes a sale of goods in which he customarily deals makes an implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code expressly abolishes the requirement a privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be brought against the seller by members of the buyer's family, his household, and his guests, with respect to personal injury sustained by them. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement. At common law the rule was that only the parties to a transaction had my rights relating to it. Accordingly, the buyer could sue his immediate seller for breach of warranties. The rule was stated in the terms that there could be no suit for breach of warranty unless there was a privies of contract. The code expressly abolishes the requirement of privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be bought against the seller by members of the buyer. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.33-53
• /
• 2014

This study examines the seller's liability for defects in title of goods under SGA. If the contracting parties choose SGA as a governing law, they should pay attention to whether a contractual stipulation for defects in title of goods is a condition or a warranty. It is because SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty. And its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Under SGA s 12(1) as a condition, in a contract of sale, the seller has a right to sell the goods at the time of contract, and in the case of an agreement to sell, he will have such a right at the time when the property is to pass. Under SGA s 12(2) as a warranty, there is an implied warranty that (a) the goods are free, and will remain free until the time when the property is to pass, from any charge or encumbrance and (b) the buyer will enjoy quiet possession of the goods as long as the buyer retains an interest in the goods. But the seller will not be liable if the third party unlawfully interferes with the buyer's possession.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제73권
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제16권3호
• /
• pp.307-316
• /
• 2014

In view of the increased threat arising terrorism, the International Maritime Organization(IMO) adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) which attached to the SOLAS Convention. The ISPS Code requires a comprehensive set of measures to enhance the security of ships and port facilities. For example, a shipowner must obtain the International Ship Security Certificate(ISSC). If the carrying vessel has not ISSC, the ship may be detained by the contracting governments. The Joint Cargo Committee(JCC) in London adopted the Cargo ISPS Endorsement, in which the assured who knowingly ships the cargoes on a non-ISPS Code compliant vessel will have no cover. However, where there is no the Cargo ISPS Endorsement in a Marine Cargo Insurance Policy and the cargo is carried by a non-ISPS Code certified vessel, the legal problem is whether or not it would constitute a breach of an implied warranty of seaworthiness and/or an implied warranty of legality. The purpose of this article is to analyze the potential legal issue on the relations between non-ISPS Code compliant vessel and two implied warranties under Marine Insurance Act(1906) in U.K.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제24권4호
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.