• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제63권
• /
• pp.63-88
• /
• 2014

The culpa in contrahendo is a doctrine that "damages should be recoverable against the party whose blameworthy conduct during negotiations for a contract brought about its invalidity or prevented its perfection". In China, Chinese Civil law gradually adopted Culpa in Contrahendo under the former 'economic contract law' and the 'general rules of the civil law', then the legal system of culpa in contrahendo was formally established under Contract Law of the People's Republic of China(CLPRC) in 1999. To put it concretely, Art. 42, 43, 58 of the Chinese Civil Law expressly establishes a culpa in contrahendo liability derived from a principle of good faith governing pre-contractual negotiations. however, in general, culpa in contrahendo has been recognized a independent legal liability as distinct from contractual default liability and torts liability. This article provides a general description of the characteristics of culpa in contrahendo under Chinese Contract Law, and both theoretical issues that have arisen in Chinese academics and relevant important precedent in Chinese Courts. This article also analyzed trend of judgment on precedents that the Supreme Peoples's Court of the PRC applied culpa in contrahendo.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제32권
• /
• pp.3-27
• /
• 2006

The Pennzoil case and the SME case illustrate the difficulties which originate from inadequate drafting of letters of intent. In both cases the judges had to face the crucial question as to whether or not a given letter of intent had a binding nature; they had in other words to decide whether the wills expressed in such letters still belonged to the pre-contractual stage, or whether their incorporation into a pre-contractual document meant that negotiations were over and binding obligations had already arisen for the parties. In other words, some problems may occur when a party has documented a stage in the negotiations by letters of intent. The letters may well explicitly spell out if, and to what extent, the parties should be bound by what they have already agreed or to carry on negotiations in order to reach the final contract. But if the letters are silent, some problems would arise. Contracting parties are, therefore, well advised to spell out if, and to what extent, they should be bound by such preliminary agreements. Here again, it might be prudent to explicitly set forth that the parties should not be bound until there is a final written contract signed by authorized representatives of the parties but that they shall abstain from such measures which may defeat their stated objective to reach final agreement, e.g. by diminishing the value of performance under the contemplated contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제51권
• /
• pp.55-78
• /
• 2011

This paper has derived some problems relating to the use of letters of intent which are common occurrence in the international contracts after considering its nature and legal issues. As reviewed before, some problems may occur when a party has documented a stage in the negotiations by letters of intent. Such documents may well explicitly spell out if, and to what extent, the parties should be bound by what they have already agreed or to carry on negotiations in order to reach the final contract. But if the documents are silent, some problems would arise. Contracting parties are therefore well advised to spell out if, and to what extent, they should be bound by such preliminary agreements. Here again, it might be prudent to explicitly set forth that the parties should not be bound until there is a final written contract signed by authorized representatives of the parties but that they shall abstain from such measures which may defeat their stated objective to reach final agreement, for example, by diminishing the value of performance under the contemplated contract.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권6호
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper analyzes how to interpret the legal view of the precedents to the UK Insurance Act 2015, comparing it to the UK Marine Insurance Act (MIA) 1906 with a focus on the relationship between the duty of uberrimae fidei and the duty of disclosure. Furthermore, this study focuses on the judgment of the Korean Supreme Court in a case, that examined whether the legal nature of the duty of disclosure or duty of uberrimae fidei in insurance law can be considered as a matter related to the insurer's liability when the applicable terms of English law are incorporated under the insurance contract. Design/methodology - This paper belongs to the field of explanatory legal study, which aims to explain and test whether the choice of law is linked to the conditions that occur in the reality of judicial practice. The approach that is used toward this problem is the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves studying and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problem. Findings - Regarding the requirements and effects of breach of the duty of disclosure, if English law and the Korean Commercial Act are handled differently from each other and Korean law is recognized as the applicable law outside of the insurer's liability, it may be whether the insurer's immunity under English law is contrary to s.633 of the Korean Commercial Act. In considering the breach of the duty of disclosure as a matter of the insurer's liability, even if English law is applied as a governing law, the question of how to interpret the agreement of the governing law in this case may also be raised in the interpretation of Korean International Private Law in relation to the applicable law that applies to the rest of the matter, excluding the matters of liability. Originality/value - According to the Korean Supreme Court judgement under the governing law of the MIA 1906, the basis for recognizing the assured's pre-and post-contractual duty of disclosure is separate, and the only important matters to be notified by the assured after the conclusion of the insurance contract are those that are "relevant" and "material circumstances" that are "relevant" to the matter in question after the conclusion of the insurance contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.