• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, 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 dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제10권1호
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2000

Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. The goal of products liability system should be to maximize consumer welfare by efficiently providing just compensation for injuries incurred and deterring future injuries without unreasonably impeding the supply of the goods and services to consumers. Some advanced countries, apart from relying on products liability systems, also apply other policies and legislation directly aimed at the safety of the consumer. The application of general safety policies as well as products liability rules is not costless. An efficient system will not eliminate risk from society. An efficient system ... that maximises consumer welfare ... maximises the benefits while minimising the costs. Products liability claims can be based on negligence, strict liability, or breach of warranty of fitness depending on the jurisdiction where the claim is based. In view of international business and law circumstances, it should be stressed that international enterprises in Korea should consider how to cope with the situation of international transaction. International enterprises should have a correct perception about products liability which is to contribute the stabilization and improvement of the people's life and the sound develpement of the national economy. Products liability system creates incentives that influence behaviour and performance in ways that are desirable, such as more diligent monitoring to prevent defective products from reaching the market-place. At the same time, any liability system will impose burdens that are undesirable, such as greater costs imposed on business and consumers and reduced avaiability of consumer goods. The concern for society is to balance. The ideal situation is where the cost imposed on producers of goods and services pushes them to a desirable level of care but not so far that producers reach undesirable level of caution that may deprive consumers unnecessarily of the benefits from new and innovative products.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제55권
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• 한국통신학회논문지
• /
• 제36권5B호
• /
• pp.484-489
• /
• 2011

우리나라 IT중소기업은 대부분 핵심적인 기술을 가진 기업에게 부품을 수급받고, 이를 조립하여 대기업에 납품하는 기업이 많다. IT 중소기업의 현실적인 지적재산관련 문제는 직접적인 소송 혹은 클레임의 문제가 아니라 계약상의 제 3자 지적재산 침해문제 혹은 계약이 없을 경우에는 각 준거법상의 묵시적 손해배상 책임의 문제이나, IT중소기업의 협상력이 크지 않기 때문에 계약상에 명시적인 보증조항을 삽입할 수 없고, 각 준거법상으로도 소송의 경제성이 없는 경우가 많아서 실효성이 없기 때문에 이에 대해서 정부기관 및 산하 연구기관에서 연구을 하여 개선안을 도출해야한다고 생각된다.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제40권4호
• /
• pp.104-113
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 조경공사 관련 분야에 종사하는 전문가집단을 대상으로 조경공사 하자실태 및 하자에 대한 인식을 알아보고자 전문가들의 조경하자에 대한 하자경험, 하자책임, 하자기간, 하자보수이행 등을 조사분석하였다. 주요 결과는 다음과 같다. 1. 하자경험에 관한 사항으로 하자이행에 따른 문제에 대해서 발주기관은 하자문제를 보통정도로 인식하는 반면, 조경건설업체는 하자문제를 심각하게 받아들이고 있었다. 또한 하자보수 시 최우선 고려사항에 대해 발주기관은 하자발생의 원인규명을 중요시 하는 반면 조경건설업체는 하자보수 공사비용을 가장 우선시하고 있었다. 2. 하자책임에 관한 사항으로 먼저 하자책임에 대한 이견의 이유에 대해 발주기관은 하자원인에 대한 정확한 분석 및 처리기준의 부재를 이유로 들었으며, 조경건설업체는 발주자(사용자)의 유지관리 책임의식의 부재를 이유로 보고 있었다. 하자이행을 위한 적합한 방법에 대한 의견으로 발주기관은 객관적인 하자판정 및 처리기준을 따른다고 하였으며, 조경건설업체는 하자 원인을 파악하고 원인자 부담원칙에 의해 분담처리를 해야 한다는 의견을 보였다. 3. 하자기간에 관한 사항으로 먼저 하자담보책임기간 2년에 대한 의견은 발주기관의 경우, 2년을 적정하다고 보는 반면 조경건설업체는 길다고 인식하고 있었다. 또한 하자담보책임기간 시점으로 적합한 시기에 대해서 발주기관은 공사의 전체 준공시점으로 보고 있는 반면, 조경건설업체는 공종별 종료시점을 적당하다고 보고 있어 의견차를 보이고 있었다. 4. 하자이행에 관한 사항으로 먼저 하자담보책임의 제도개선 방안으로 발주기관은 객관적인 하자 판정 및 처리기준수립을, 조경건설업체는 조경공사 유지관리비 반영을 최우선으로 선택하였다. 또한 하자이행을 위해 하자 판정 및 처리기준 제정 시 중요사항으로 발주기관은 객관적인 하자 여부 판정기준을, 조경건설업체는 발주처 및 사용자의 유지관리 방법 및 책임 명시를 각각 중요사항으로 꼽아 의견 차이를 보이고 있었다. 본 연구 결과, 조경공사 하자처리전문기관이 없고 하자판정 및 처리기준과 하자이행체계가 미비하므로 합리적인 하자 처리전문기관을 만들고, 객관적인 판정 및 처리기준의 수립이 필요하다.

• 전기학회논문지P
• /
• 제58권4호
• /
• pp.632-632
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this study is to present the range of defects mentioned in the Product Liability (PL) and to establish an objective basis and grounds for the analysis of accidents expected to happen by analyzing and presenting the external flame pattern and electrical characteristics of an LED streetlight lamp, a new lighting lamp. From the analysis of the cross-section of a cable carbonized by an external flame, it was observed that the wire's strand and insulation material had solidly adhered, and that greater voids were formed at the surface than at the center. Irregular carbide lumps were formed in the globe directly exposed to the flame, and the globe carbonized by the indirect flame showed characteristics that they had melted and flowed downward. It was found that the forward and backward resistances of the normal LED were approximately 1.74 [$M{\Omega}$] and 140 [$M{\Omega}$], respectively. The lamp burnt by the strong flame exhibited infinite forward and backward resistances and the LED did not emit light. The carbonized LED lamp was gray and exhibited fine delaminations. According to the Product Liability, a product defect signifies a simple product defect. Most of the defects were caused by the lack of stability, and the defect of the product itself occurred during the design and manufacture. The defects in warnings and markings include an insufficiency of handling manuals and warnings, expressive warranty violations, defective markings, etc. In order to prevent an accident resulting from a product, it is necessary to prepare safety warnings and documentation, establish clear-cut lines of liabilities, and subscribe insurances. However, it could be seen that important factors against the Product Liability were product improvement, response to compensation requests and law suits, credit restoration, etc.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제44권
• /
• pp.111-180
• /
• 2009

According to English law, in a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure to be insured. However, Unites States law affords the implied warranty of seaworthiness a great deal of latitude. In the case of voyage policies, it has been traditionally held that the assured is bound not only to have his vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage but also to keep her so, insofar as this can be achieved by himself and his agents, throughout the voyage. Additionally, a defect in seaworthiness, arising after the commencement of the risk, and permitted to continue from bad faith or want of ordinary prudence or diligence on the part of the insured or his agents, discharges the insurer from liability for any loss consequent to such bad faith, or want of prudence or diligence; but does not affect the insurance contract in reference to any other risk or loss covered by the policy, and which is not caused or exacerbated by the aforementioned defect. One of the most important areas of difference in the marine insurance contract between the U.K. and U.S. is the breach of warranty. Prior to the Wilburn Boat case, the MIA was thought to hold that the effect of a breach of warranty was similar under American law -in that under the general maritime law literal compliance with all promissory warranties is required. In this case, the Court concluded that state law should apply to a marine insurance policy, and found that there was no federal rule addressing the consequences of a breach of warranty in marine polices. However, it is of the utmost importance that this case brought to a close the imperative concordance between English and American law. Meanwhile, in relation to marine insurance contracts in Korea, this insurance is subject to English law and practice;, additionally, the international trade volume between Korea and the United States has assumed a vast scale. Therefore, we believe it is important to understand the differences in marine insurance law between the two countries in terms of marine insurance contracts, and most specifically warranties.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제66권
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.