• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 1999

Under the CISG, there is a unequitable factor in comparing buyer's remedy with seller's remedy. In my opinion, CISG is more unequitable remedy clause than UCC or UNIDROIT principle of International Commercial Contract(1994) between seller and buyer. First, buyer who accepted defect goods must give seller notice the facts that seller delivered defect goods in two years after accepting defect goods. The cap of two year is unreasonable in a position of aggrieved buyer. This is being provided as 'within reasonable time' in UCC and there is no such provision in UNIDROIT Principle. Second, Buyer can avoid contract when seller breached fundamentally contract or seller didn't set a additional performance period about breaching of contract. Accordingly if buyer would not set a additional performance period, although seller's breachment of contract, he could not avoid the contract. Therefore, From a viewpoint of aggrieved buyer avoidable right of contract is restrainted. Third, to compare seller's remedy with buyer's, seller have more opportunity to cure breachment of contract than buyer. Under the CISG buyer is relatively placed at disadvantage in remedy of aggrieved party. In connection with remedy of aggrieved party, 'UNIDROIT principle of international commercial contracts' instead seller and buyer of aggrieved party, so there is not unequitable factor in remedy of aggrieved parties.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the review of buyer's remedy resulting from the breach of seller's duty in contracts for the international sale of goods focusing on UNCCIS, 1980 and the problems and suggestions of proper ideas for solving the problems. First problem on the buyer's remedy is related to the breach of seller's duty on del ivory of the contracted goods. When seller has failed to deliver the contracted goods to buyer within the stipulated periods, buyer can treat the contract as avoided and claim damages from seller. By the way, since UNCCIS does not provide any stipulation on the time of buyer's avoidance of the contract, buyer can delay the time of avoidance when the price of contracted goods is rising rapidly and enlarge the amount of damages, Since this stipulation is clearly unreasonable, proper solutions are required for UNCCIS. Second problem is related to the breach of seller's duty on deliver of goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packged in the manner required by the contract. When seller has failed to deliver goods which are confirm with the contract, buyer may have one of the two rights of damages and the price reduction according to UNCCIS provided that he does not choose the avoidance. But, since the character and position of the price reduction as a buyer's remedy are not sufficient solutions, more detailed review on this point is required. Third, Seller's duty to provide documents is very important for overseas trade, but UNCCIS does not provide any specific buyer's remedy in comparison with the other remedy and also does not provide any stipulation on the Letter of Credit which have important roles for a device of setting payment in overseas trade. This means that trade customs and practice have not sufficiently reflected in UNCCIS. As the problems mentioned above may decrease the evaluation of buyer's remedy in UNCCIS and, furthermore, that of UNCCIS itself, proper solutions on these points are needed.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.45-62
• /
• 2016

Price reduction under CISG Art. 50 is advantageous to a buyer because it is a self-help remedy to the buyer. It is the buyer that has the option and the power to reduce the price paid or to be paid to the seller. Price reduction is indispensable in such cases where the seller is relieved of liability. In such cases the remedy of price reduction is the only one giving the buyer monetary relief. Another special role of price reduction is to determine how much the buyer owes the seller for non-conforming goods when special circumstances relieve the seller of liability for damages. In any event, price reduction has been designed both as an alternative to damages and for cases where the non-performing party is excused from liability for damages. The price reduction remedy however leaves several issues for clarification and application in several respects.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• 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
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제71권
• /
• pp.1-36
• /
• 2016

Unlike continental European legal systems (civil law systems), specific performance in common law refers to an equitable remedy requiring exactly the performance that was specified in a contract. It usually granted only when money damages would be an inadequate remedy and the subject matter of the contract is unique. Thus, under common law specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. Consistent with the practice in civil law jurisdictions, United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) makes specific performance the normal remedy for breach of a contract for the sale of goods. Therefore, the buyer may require a breaching seller to deliver substitute goods or to make any reasonable repair. Likewise, the sellermay require the buyer to taker delivery of goods and pay for them. Despite this, Article 28 of the CISG restricts the availability of specific performance where it would be unavailable under the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which the court is located. Thus, the CISG's more liberal policy toward specific performance is restricted by common law. There are some legal issues in CISG's specific performance availability by Article 28. This paper analyzes these issues as interpreting Article 28 of CISG, by examining various theories of application to actions for specific performance and comparing CLOUT cases involving CISG Article 28.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권3호
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

본 연구는 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관하여 규정하고 있는 CISG의 제30조와 34조의 내용을 무역관습인 Incoterms 및 신용장통일규칙(UCP)과 관련하여 해석하고, 서류교부의무의 위반이 매수인에게 어떤 법적 구제권을 부여하는지를 규명한다. CISG는 제 30조와 34조에 매도인의 서류교부의무에 관한 규정을 두고 있으나 서류의 종류, 서류교부 시기, 장소, 형식 등에 대해서는 별도로 규율하지 않고 계약 및 관습(usage)에 의존하고 있다. 이에 따라 계약에 명시적인 규정이 없는 경우 Incoterms와 신용장통일규칙이 협약을 보완하여 적용된다. 매도인이 계약에 적합한 서류를 정해진 시기, 장소, 형식에 따라 교부할 의무를 이행하지 않는 경우 협약의 제45조에 의해 이행청구권, 계약해제권 및 손해배상청구권 등의 구제권이 매수인에게 부여된다. 그러나 계약해제권의 경우 협약이 계약의 유지를 기본 정신으로 하고 있으므로 매우 제한적으로 인정되는 경향이 있다.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제5권1호
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 1995