• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.8
• /
• pp.101-120
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The buyer's right to withhold performance is a useful and important self-help remedy to protect himself from the seller's breach of contract, and it is also the coercive means to induce the seller to perform his part of contract. However, the buyer's exercise of such a right often exposes himself to the risk of breaching the contract. This is generally due to his ignorance when he is entitled to the right and also uncertainties inherent in the law. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine what the requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right for the seller's actual breach of contract. Design/methodology - In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance under the CISG and the CESL. It mainly focuses on performance due, the seller's non-performance, the buyer's readiness to perform and the requirement of notice. Findings - The main findings of this comparative study can be summarized as follows: Although the CISG has no expressive provision for the buyer's general right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance, it may be inferred from the general principles the CISG underlies, synallagmatic nature of the contract. In addition, it can be drawn by analogy from relevant provisions of the CISG. On the other hand, the CESL expressively provides that the buyer has a general right to withhold performance where the seller fails to tender performance or perform the contract. Therefore, it seems that the position of CESL is rather easier and more apparent to allow the buyer to withhold performance for the seller's non-performance. Originality/value - Most of the existing studies on the right to withhold performance under the CISG have centered on the right to withhold performance for an anticipatory breach of contract. On the other hand, there have been few prior studies on the right to withhold performance for the actual nonperformance during a contractual period of performance. Therefore, this paper examined the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance under the CISG and the CESL in a comparative way for the seller's actual breach of obligation. In this conclusion, it may provide practical and legal considerations and implications for business people who are not certain about the right to withhold performance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.59-158
• /
• 2005

When a military aircraft suffers damages due to the defects in its design, manufacturing or notification, all of which are generally understood as products liability defects, the obvious compensation is sought as it would in other consumer good case. However, there exist clear yet unappreciated difference between general consumer goods and military aircraft, as far as products liability law is concerned - some sort of recovery should be obtained even when there exist only defects, not damages, to the aircraft because of the implication of defective parts is much grave than what can be expected in a consumer goods case. While certain anticipatory measures do exist in manual or at negotiation stages for the safety of military aircraft, such measures are ineffective, if not ambiguous, in recovery effort in the post-accident stage In another word, the standardized military procurement contract manuals and boilerplate forms do not appreciate the unique and dangerous military nature of military aircraft. There are many unique legal issues which can arise when trying to prevent defective aircraft or parts, or to recover compensations for accident due to such defects. At two-level, the government should establish legal system (or countermeasures if you'd like) for purchasing safer military aircraft. First, one should be able to work with legal ground and policy that allows selecting and purchasing safer goods - the purpose of such contract is not litigious, but rather in acquiring what are most reliable. Second, in case the defects do arise and lead to damages, solid legal principles and instructions should be established for effectively pursuing appropriate company, (usually a aerospace industry giant with much experience) for products liability - the purpose of such pursuit is inevitable for a public official, since he or she is no private business man with much flexibilities, even to the point of waiving such compensatory right for future business purposes. This article tries to identify problems in methods of procuring military aircraft or parts - after reviewing on how the military can improve on legal and policy grounds for procuring what will be the focus of future military strength, it will offer some of the ways to effectively handling and resolving a liability issues.