• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제19권1호
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, 1 want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• 한국항만경제학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항만경제학회 2003년도 정기학술대회지
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제14권
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Fifthly, the insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제20권
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this paper is to examine the customs clearance impediment and trade parties breaches of international sales contract by the impediment. Customs clearance impediment arises when (a)clearance is not permitted, (b) importation goods are confiscated, (c)clearance delay without expectation, and (d) additional excessive trade cost caused in the process of clearance. This kind of clearance impediment may cause the breach of international sales contract. And it depends on its contents of contract and causal sequence i.e. cause and effect respectively in determining who is liable for it. If one party exemptions by Article 79 CISG, next three elements must be proved. (a)The failure was due to an impediment beyond his control; (b)the impediment was reasonably unforeseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and (c)the impediment was reasonably impossible to overcome. But the customs clearance impediment is not easy to prove these three elements, the party who is responsible the customs clearance may not be exemptions by Article 79 CISG. And, according to review, it is concluded that the buyer, rather than seller, is liable for the damage which is caused in the process of clearance. It is also confirmed that the seller is sometimes liable for depending on clauses of contracts i.e. quality conditions.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2014

Korea has become a member of the United Nations Convention on Contract of the International Sales of Goods (the 'CISG') effective since March 1, 2005. As, therefore, the governing law of the general terms and conditions (the 'GTC') in the Government Foreign Procurement Contract (the 'Contract') is mandatorily fixed to the Korean Law, the CISG, as an International Convention, now having an equivalent or even higher status to the Korean Law, unless expressly excluded, will be priorly applied to the Contract where a transaction occurs between its members. In this regard, this study focuses on how to find the way for the CISG to be a governing law of the GTC in order to eliminate legal uncertainties and lacks of foreseeability prevailed in the international trade. For that purpose, the legal aspects of GTC, and the Buyer's remedy for the Seller's breach of the Contract are analyzed in accordance with the comparative study between the CISG and the GTC including the relevant case studies. As a result of this study, the application of the CISG into the GTC is highly recommended in order to reflect into the Contract such features as fairly harmonized for the interest of both parties. Taking this opportunity, a GTC, amended from the existing one, or newly formed, within the perimeter of not conflicting with the provisions of the CISG, including but not limited to the Civil Law and Commercial Law, is required in order to evenly share each party's responsibilities and obligations where the breach or remedy of the Contract is, and, thus, which will ultimately contribute to an efficient conduct of the Contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제76권
• /
• pp.125-145
• /
• 2017

Where an insurer has unreasonably refused to pay a claim or paid it after unreasonably delay, the existing law in England does not provide a remedy for the insured. Accordingly, the insured is not entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result of the insurer's unreasonable delay. This legal position differs from the law in Scotland and most major common law jurisdictions. LC thought that the legal position in England is anomalous and out of step with general contractual principles. LC considered that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment of claim, and, therefore, recommended a statutory implied term in every insurance that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time and breach of that term should give rise to contractual remedies, including damages. More detailed recommendations of LC are as followings. First, it should be an implied term of every insurance contract that, where an insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay sums due within a reasonable time. Secondly, a reasonable time should always include a reasonable time for investigating and assessing a claim. Although a reasonable time will depend on all the relevant circumstances, for example, the following things may need to be taken into account, that is, (1) the type of insurance, (2) the size and complexity of the claim, (3) compliance with any relevant statutory rules or guidance, and (4) factors outside the insurer's control. Thirdly, if the insurer can show that it had reasonable grounds for disputing the claim(whether as to pay or not, or the amount payable), the insurer does not breach the obligation to pay within a reasonable time merely by failing to pay the claim while the dispute is continuing. In those circumstances, the conduct of the insurer in handling the dispute may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the obligation was breached and, if so, when. Fourthly, Normal contractual remedies for breach of contract should be available for breach of the implied term to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Finally, In non-consumer insurance contracts, the insurer should be permitted to exclude or limit its liability for breach of the obligation to pay sums due within a reasonable time, unless such breach was deliberate or reckless, and such an insurer's right to contract out will be subject to satisfying the transparency requirements.

• 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.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• 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.