• 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
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.3-44
• /
• 2012

Shipbuilding industry is one of the most influential ones in Korea. As shipbuilding industry is labor-intensive, it contributes to enhancing both local economy and national economy. Shipbuilding industry has been downsizing since the end of 2008 due to global financial crisis caused by America's sub-prime mortgage and aggravated by European countries' fiscal deficit. As a large fund is required for a single normal shipbuilding contract, fund raising is one of the most important elements in shipbuilding contract. Shipbuilding contract, requires refund guarantee in order for a buyer to reimburse the progressive payment paid to a builder. The disputes under shipbuilding contracts are mostly settled by arbitration rather than by law suit. English laws and English courts have been preferred for the choice of law as well as for the choice of forum. Due to depreciation of the ship value since the end of 2008, a number of buyers are trying to cancel the contract by raising unjust claim under the contract. Once disputes occurs regarding shipbuilding contract, a large amount of loss is inevitable. In order to mitigate the disputes arising from the shipbuilding contract, careful caution is required in drafting a shipbuilding contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.

• 디지털융복합연구
• /
• 제4권2호
• /
• pp.97-108
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to generate a proper regulation improvement direction of the public If project contract law through the current four contract methods and three methods of the awarding party of a contract method. The research method for this paper is derived from the written materials of the present public IT project contract law. Two problems have been processed in order to produce the results: the current contract methods and the awarding party of a contract method. The current contract methods consist of a competition contract, a private contract, and a supply methodology contract, The methods of the awarding party of a contract display a qualified evaluation regulation, the 2nd step competition bid, a standard cost separation tender, and a contract by a negotiation. The results exhibit that the general competition contract consists of four improvement items. The contract by a negotiation contains five improvement items. The group private contract has one improvement item. And the private contract includes one improvement item. These results implicate that the current public IT project contract law demands better improvement work for the ubiquitous Korea.

• 한국디지털정책학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국디지털정책학회 2006년도 춘계학술대회
• /
• pp.319-353
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study is to generate a proper regulation improvement direction of the public IT project contract law through the current four contract methods and three methods of the awarding party of a contract method. The research method for this paper is derived from the written materials of the present public IT project contract law. Two problems have been processed in order to produce the results: the current contract methods and the awarding party of a contract method. The current contract methods consist of a competition contract, a private contract, and a supply methodology contract. The methods of the awarding party of a contract display a qualified evaluation regulation, the 2nd step competition bid, a standard cost separation tender, and a contract by a negotiation. The results exhibit that the general competition contract consists of four improvement items. The contract by a negotiation contains five improvement items. The group private contract has one improvement item. And the private contract includes one improvement item. These results implicate that the current public IT project contract law demands better improvement work for the ubiquitous Korea.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the several points at issue in international technology transfer contract from licensor's and licensee's perspectives, and to refer them when the licensor and the licensee draw up the contract. This author analyzed the critical points of the related provisions of ICC Model International Technology Transfer Contract(2009) by citing the explanations of the Introduction of the Model Contract. The provisions of the Model Contract are generally divided into two categolies; specific conditions and general conditions. This author selected four topics in the specific conditions; Contents of the Contract, Royalty, Modification and/or Improvements of Products, and Territory and Competition. Likewise this author selected three topics in the general conditions; Resolutions of Disputes, Applicable Law and Taxes. Both parties need to be mindful of the following points in the above topics, when they draw up the contract. First, both parties should make the definitions of special terminologies clear, which are included in the Contract. Second, before the parties sign the Contract, they should check any approvals to be necessary by the both countries' governments. Third, for the calculation of the royalty, they should clear the criteria, the scope, and the object. Fourth, as the local laws or regional laws regarding the territory limitation and taxation are mandatory, any provisions of the Contract should not be inconsistent with them. Therefore, both parties should check before-hand the local laws or rules related with the provisions of the Contract. Fifth, when the parties draw up the Contract, they should examine the Provisions of Dispute Resolution in consideration of the Governing Law. Thus both parties decide to make the technology transfer contract, the three aspects namely profitability, legal conflict with mandatory rules, and sustainability of the business resulting from the Contract should be examined in advance, and then proceed the business using the technology transfer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제21권
• /
• pp.3-37
• /
• 2003

English law accepts the basic principle of freedom of contract that the parties should be free to agree on any terms that they like unless their agreement is illegal or otherwise contrary to public policy because it infringes some public interest. On the other hand, it has been limited for hundreds of years on the basis that certain contract terms, particularly in standard form, may alter a distribution of risks that the customer would reasonably intended. The alteration may often result from his simple ignorance caused by either lack of opportunity to become aware of clauses or inability to understand their full potential implications. In addition, it may also result from disparity in bargaining power which does not allow the customer to look after their own interests even if he is fully aware of the unacceptable clauses. In response to this problem, English law has employed both judicial and statutory intervention techniques to control unfair contract terms. This study describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms, particularly, in standard form, in order to provide legal advice to our sellers residing either in UK or in Korea who plan to enter into UK markets. It also attempts to explore any problem in the existing double legislations of UCTA and UTCCR and put forward future direction of English law in light of the Draft Unfair Terms Bill which was currently proposed by the Law Commissioners. The main concern of this paper will be confined to some of the various aspects of both judicial and statutory control of unfair contract terms in English law which may draw our attention in terms of domestic or international business sales.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.127-151
• /
• 2016

UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts(PICC) was published in 1994. PICC has been functioned as a guideline of international commercial contracts, an applicable law to govern a contract by the agreement of the parties to a contract, general principles of law and lex mercatoria. In addition, PICC has a role of interpreting or supplementing international uniform law instruments as well as domestic laws, and also has served as a model for national and international legislations. PICC has been accepted as a authoritative source of knowledge of international trade usages of international commercial contracts to the arbitral tribunal rather than domestic court because it excluded the characteristics of hard law at the drafting stage. This article dealt with the rule on gross disparity of validity which fall outside the scope of UN Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG), which has obtained a leading legal position of uniform law in international sales of good. In other words, PICC suggests a series of meaningful solutions to the issue of gross disparity of contract which is the most complicated among legal disputes occurring during the process of conclusion of contact and also extremely different and diverse between legal systems. This article covered the issue of gross disparity of contract at the conclusion of contact and suggested the legal basis of several rules related to the gross disparity by analysing gross disparity rule of PICC. Furthermore, this article suggested legal check points or implication as well as interpretation and evaluation on doctrine of laesio enormis and undue influence or unconscionability. This article also dealt with a comparative analysis with Principles of European Contract Law(PECL) and Common European Sales Law(CESL) which have important legal positions in the area of international commercial contract as well as in terms of close relationship to PICC by linking with recent court or arbitral tribunal rulings.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.153-178
• /
• 2016

The United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods(CISG) leaves a number of aspects concerning commercial sales untouched. In particular, it is not concerned with the validity of the contract or of any of its provisions or of any usage. And UNIDROIT don't deal with all-round validity in International Commercial Contract. Especially, UNIDROIT includes declaration of intention department. The UNIDROIT contains the chapter 3 on the "validity" in terms of the defects of consent such as mistake, fraud, and threat as well as "gross disparity". Notwithstanding these provisions, the Principles did not deal with invalidity arising from the lack of capacity or authority, or immorality or illegality. On the other hand, there are arguments that the corresponding provisions of the Principles of International Commercial Contracts(UNIDROIT Principles; PICC). Therefore, Validity in International Commercial Contract is delegate by Each Country Law. So Trade practicer should know full well about Each Country Law Position. People(human, corporation, company) of position Trade practice classify each country civil law relation to validity of commercial contract. This paper is to examine the Validity of UNIDROIT Principles. Also this paper analyses comparison on each country position relation to capacity of right, capacity to act, illegality of contract, declaration of intention. In conclusion, This paper expect that people of trade practice makes use of analysis knowledge.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European 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 developed and clarified 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 a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.