• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2000

Incoterms mean the ICC official rules for the interpretation of trade terms which facilitate the conduct of international trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, Incoterms has been revised successively to adapt them to contemporary commercial practice. In particularly, substantive changes in Incoterms 2000 have been made in two areas: (i) the customs clearance under FAS and DEQ; and (ii) the loading and unloading obligations under FCA. But it should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to the contract of sale and not apply to the contracts of carriage, insurance and financing. Moreover, merchants wishing to use Incoterms 2000 should clearly specify that their contract is governed by 'Incoterms 2000'. It is particularly important to note that Incoterms are not dealt with a great number of problems, such as transfer of property rights, breaches of contract and exemptions from liability. Therefore, the contracting parties should clearly agree to the applicable law related their contract of sale, like the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.31-48
• /
• 2012

If see CISG's passing of risk and altered regulations first, when sales contract accompanies transport of goods and seller does not have duty to deliver goods at particular place, when deliver to the first carter to send to purchaser according to sales contract risk passes to purchaser, and when there is duty that seller must deliver goods to carter at specification place, when goods are delivered to carter at same place, risk does not pass to purchaser. Second, risk about transporting goods passes to purchaser at signing a contract. But, when there is special assessment, risk passes to purchaser when goods are delivered to carter who publish document that embody contract of carriage. Nevertheless, it is loss if seller did not notify this truth to occasion purchaser who could knew loss or damage of goods or know justly at sales contract conclusion defamation danger seller of be burdensome. Third, seller has responsibility about damage or loss as long as hide in own artificiality or forbearance after risk passes to purchaser. Regulation about risk in Incoterms 2010 was separated into 11 condition, and move time of risk differs in angle condition. It is appeared that the substance handles relatively comprehensively because compare in Incoterms 2010 although it is because it becomes if it examines regulation about deliver and passing of risk of goods setting in CISG relatively concise. Also, segments that can become posibility of analysis controversy exist.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.359-389
• /
• 2011

The Rotterdam Rules, which was adopted in December 2008 by UNCITRAL, has underlying intention that it will provide uniform law for the international carriage of goods by sea and modernize transport law reflecting modern transport custom. However, it is also true that there are various conflicting views on the Rotterdam Rules. This article tried to analyze main controversial issues such as scope of application, basis of liability of the shipper and the carrier, exception th the volume contract, legal position of the freight forwarder, delivery of the goods from the both sides of view. The Rotterdam Rules exposes some problems in applying and interpreting the Rules as many people indicated. These problems, I think, mainly due to the extended scope of application and broader range of issues. However, I do not think that the Rotterdam Rules will serious affect to the international transport industry. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect perfect Rules satisfying every interests.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.121-136
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this paper is to study the current situations of trade financial EDI based on The BOLERO system, New BOLERO system, The NACCS system in Japan and The EDEN(Electronic DElivery Negotiable document) system and problems in application of marine insurance contracts. Entwined with the contracts of carriage in international sale transactions is a contract of marine insurance by which the goods are insured against maritime perils. In the thesis I tried to explain the problems of paperless marine insurance contracts based on problems in relating to formation of the transit insurance contract and replication the functions of the marine insurance policy electronically.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.63-82
• /
• 2003

The time of examination of buyer in international sales contract is very significant, because the time is related with the period of claim in buyer's aspect. From the legal point of view, the time of delivery, the time of examination and the time of quality decision should be in accord. But the buyer, whose main place of business is located in importing country, wants to examine the goods in his own country. Therefore in CIF or FOB Contract, the place of delivery and the place of examination are divided. Thus the CISG, the Common Law System and the Civil Law System including Korean Law stipulate the buyer's examination at the destination if the sales contract involves carriage of the goods. This author, from the buyer's perspective, would like to make the following suggestions in regard to the time of examination when the sales contract is made. First, the time of examination and the time of quality decision should be in accord, even though the time of delivery is different. Second, the buyer should clearly indicate the time, the place, the inspector, the particulars and the burden of proof in regard to examination when contracting. Third, the buyer should also clearly indicate the period of notice for the lack of conformity in Claim Clause of sales contract, which should be counted from the time of examination. Fourth, the buyer should remember that he many lose the right to rely on the lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give the seller notice thereof within the stipulated time or reasonable time. Finally, if the buyer wants, to examine the goods at the place of shipment, it is desirable for the buyer to designate internationally recognized inspection organization like SGS.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2015

The aim of this study is to examine the obligations of delivery of the goods focusing on the methods of delivery under the Incoterms 2010, comparing with CISG. The Incoterms 2010 provides various methods of delivery of the goods under the each rule(11 rules). And it is a little confusing for the parties of the contract of sales. This study reviewed specific methods of delivery of the goods with the view of practitioner. The purpose of Incoterms is to avoid misunderstanding of the contract of sales and to promote the international transactions. The uncertainties of the Incoterms 2010 shall cause disputes between the parties. Especially, when vehicles are used to pick up and deliver the goods, which party is responsible for the loading and unloading the goods. Under the D-term, which party is responsible for unloading the goods from the vehicle reached at the named place of destination is a little confusing. This study suggest some ideas on the specific methods of delivery to mitigate uncertainties and accept current practices at the field. Firstly, under the EXW rule, the seller must deliver the goods on the arriving means of transport at the seller's premises. Secondly, under the FCA rule, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded at the other place except seller's premises. Thirdly, under the CPT, CIP rules, the seller must deliver the goods unloaded irrespective of the mode of transport at the place of destination. Fourthly, the FOB, CFR, CIF rules must adapt the container transport practice.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.67-92
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to research the requirements and effect of the document of carriage in respect of the carriage of cargo by air under the Montreal Convention of 1999, IATA Conditions of Carriage for Cargo, and the judicial precedents of Korea and foreign countries. Under the Article 4 of Montreal Convention, in respect of the carriage of cargo, an air waybill shall be delivered. If any other means which preserves a record of the carriage are used, the carrier shall, if so requested by the consignor, deliver to the consignor a cargo receipt. Under the Article 7 of Montreal convention, the air waybill shall be made out by the consignor. If, at the request of the consignor, the carrier makes it out, the carrier shall be deemed to have done so on behalf of the consignor. The air waybill shall be made out in three original parts. The first part shall be marked "for the carrier", and shall be signed by the consignor. The second part shall be marked "for the consignee", and shall be signed by the consignor and by the carrier. The third part shall be signed by the carrier who shall hand it to the consignor after the goods have been accepted. Under the Article 5 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or the cargo receipt shall include (a) an indication of the places of departure and destination, (b) an indication of at least one agreed stopping place, (c) an indication of the weight of the consignment. Under the Article 10 of Montreal Convention, the consignor shall indemnify the carrier against all damages suffered by the carrier or any other person to whom the carrier is liable, by reason of the irregularity, incorrectness or incompleteness of the particulars and statement furnished by the consignor or on its behalf. Under the Article 9 of Montreal Convention, non-compliance with the Article 4 to 8 of Montreal Convention shall not affect the existence of the validity of the contract, which shall be subject to the rules of Montreal Convention including those relating to limitation of liability. The air waybill is not a document of title or negotiable instrument. Under the Article 11 of Montreal Convention, the air waybill or cargo receipt is prima facie evidence of the conclusion of the contract, of the acceptance of the cargo and of the conditions of carriage. Under the Article 12 of Montreal Convention, if the carrier carries out the instructions of the consignor for the disposition of the cargo without requiring the production of the part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt, the carrier will be liable, for any damage which may be accused thereby to any person who is lawfully in possession of that part of the air waybill or the cargo receipt. According to the precedent of Korea Supreme Court sentenced on 22 July 2004, the freight forwarder as carrier was not liable for the illegal delivery of cargo to the notify party (actual importer) on the air waybill by the operator of the bonded warehouse because the freighter did not designate the boned warehouse and did not hold the position of employer to the operator of the bonded warehouse. In conclusion, as the Korea Customs Authorities will drive the e-Freight project for the carriage of cargo by air, the carrier and freight forwarder should pay attention to the requirements and legal effect of the electronic documentation of the carriage of cargo by air.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.281-300
• /
• 2004

This paper is about a case on the arbitration of disputes between the parties of charter party. 'B' vessel owner on the original charter party first made a charter party with 'L' cargo owner on the original charter party. Then, 'B' entered into another charter party with 'D' vessel owner, who will actually take charge of carriage of the cargoes which is described on the original charter party. Therefore, 'B' is a carrier of cargoes of 'L' and 'D' is a carrier of cargoes of 'B', according to the contracts. The cargoes of 'B' is cargoes of 'L', by nature. In these circumstances, damages to the cargoes occurred in the transit by the vessel of 'D'. Who should take the responsibility for the damage of cargoes? Who must be liable for those, 'B' or 'D'？. According to the original charter party, 'L' signed 'as Charterers' and 'B' was the counterpart of 'L'. But 'B' signed as 'for and on behalf of 'B',' without 'as Owners'. Tribunal of arbitration award that 'B' should take the responsibility for the damage to the cargoes, because 'B' is the vessel owner. Although 'B' is a contract carrier, 'B' must bear the liability of transport of the cargoes. The counterpart of charterer, 'L' is 'B' who is presumed to be the vessel owner by the original charter party. 'D', actual carrier is not the privy of 'L', cargo owner. This case teach us that signature on the contract is the matter of great importance.