• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of LD Clause against the seller's breach of contract in connection with delivering the goods in the international sales contract, and international guarantee system using standby L/C or demand guarantee. For this purpose, the author, first, considered the outline of the buyer's remedies in cases that the seller had not performed his obligations in contract and the difficulties in the buyer's remedies. As alternatives for overcoming the difficulties, this author recommended the LD Clauses (Liquidated Damage Clauses) based on ICC Model International Sales Contract, and explained each Model Clause. To enhance the feasibility of LD Clause, this author suggested the guarantee system, like the standby L/C or demand guarantee. But these guarantee systems have several limitations in practical use. Thus, these guarantee systems would greatly contribute to Korean exportation in the future. The reason is that the Korean export structure would be more complex and the period of sales contract would be longer and longer, which result to in long-terms supply contracts. These changes would require the guarantee much urgently.

• 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.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.59-98
• /
• 2013

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application. First, it is agreement that is the agreement of the parties controls. Second, the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Third, the delivery by common carrier other than by seller is necessary: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations; If it is a destination contract, then risk of loss is on the seller; If it is a delivery contract, then the risk of loss is on the buyer. Fourth, if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's receipt of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. This paper discusses problems of risk of loss under the American law. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of risk of loss issues for Korean law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.60
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2013

The Incoterms and United Nations Convention on Contract for the international Sales of Goods(CISG) allocate a risk in their articles. These rules make a decision that the parties who make a transaction are bound to bear the risk or damages of goods. Though a goods have a damages or loss during a transportation, buyer is liable for the payment of purchase price. In this case, this paper defines the meaning whether who can bear the risk under Incoterms and CISG. In the majority cases which deal between parties, after shipment or at the end of carriage, the loss or damages are found in buyer's hand. If a damages or loss is made during transit, customarily these risk are covered by insurance. Otherwise, these rules provide a tools for solving this problems. Then, between parties should be accomplished their target equitably.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.4
• /
• pp.195-217
• /
• 2016

The Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) endeavors to increase international trade through the creation of a uniform law of international sales. The CISG applies to contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business if that which has the closest relationship to the contract and its performance. Despite the importance of a definition for 'place of business,' the CISG does not provide one. Lack of a definition of 'place of business' may cause problems for parties trying to determine whether the CISG applies to their contract. Also Contracting parties can opt out of the CISG. But the CISG does not state whether the parties must expressly exclude the CISG's application to a transaction or whether they might do so by implication. we need to consider how effectively opt out of the CISG. Under U.S. law, the CISG is considered to be a self-executing treaty. So the CISG's provisions apply directly as substantive sales law to contracts for the international sale of goods. Despite the CISG's political and economic significance to U.S., U.S. Courts have overlooked the terms of the CISG. This article considered how to the CISG was recognized, interpreted and applied by the U.S. Courts in related cases.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.3-41
• /
• 2011

In this article, the author have studied on main revisions and some recommendations of the Incoterms(R) 2010. Main revisions are as belows. 1. Two new Incoterms rules -DAT and DAP- have replaced the Incoterms 2000 rules DAF, DES, DEQ and DDU. 2. New classification of the Incoterms(R) 2010 are adopted. First class is Rules for any mode or modes of transport(EXW, FCA, CPT, CIP, DAT, DAP and DDP belong to this class.) and second class is rules for sea and inland waterway transport(FAS, FOB, CFR and CIF belong to this class.). 3. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules formally recognizes that they are available for application to both international and domestic sale contracts. 4. The Guidance Notes and Introduction are not part of the actual Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 5. Under the FOB, CFR and CIF, all mention of the ship's rail as the point of delivery has been omitted in preference for the goods being delivered when they are "on board" the vessel. 6. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules include the obligation to 'procure goods shipped' as an alternative to the obligation to ship goods in the relevant Incoterms rules. 7. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules give electronic means of communication the same effect as paper communication. 8. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules have allocated obligations between the buyer and seller to obtain or to render assistance in obtaining security-related clearances. such as chain-of custody information. Some recommendations are as belows. 1. The parties must incorporate the Incoterms(R) 2010 rules into their contract of sale. 2. The parties must choose the appropriate Incoterms(R) 2010 rules. 3. Specify the place or port as precisely as possible in their contract of sale. 4. Remember that Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not give the parties a complete contract of sale. 5. Incoterms(R) 2010 rules do not prohibit alteration of Incoterms rule, but there are dangers in so doings. In order to avoid any unwelcome surprises, the parties would need to make the intended effect of such alterations extremely clear in their contract.

• 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.18
• /
• pp.27-62
• /
• 2002

The international sale contract is the central contracts in export-import transactions. A good sale contract or set of general conditions of sale will cover all the principal elements of the transaction, so that uncertainties are avoided. The parties' respective duties as concern the payment mechanism, transport contract and insurance responsibilities, inter alia, will all be clearly detailed in the contract. The following key clauses should be included in international contracts of sale and general conditions of sale: ${\bullet}$ preamble ${\bullet}$ identification of parties ${\bullet}$ description of goods ${\bullet}$ price and payment conditions ${\bullet}$ delivery periods and conditions ${\bullet}$ inspection of the goods - obligations and limitations ${\bullet}$ quantity or quality variations in the products delivered ${\bullet}$ reservation of title and passing of property rights ${\bullet}$ transfer of risk - how accomplished ${\bullet}$ seller's warranties and buyer's complaints ${\bullet}$ assignment of rights ${\bullet}$ force majeure clause and hardship clause ${\bullet}$ requirement that amendments and modifications be in writing ${\bullet}$ choice of law ${\bullet}$ choice of dispute resolution mechanism Under most systems of law, a party can be excused from a failure to perform a contract obligation which is caused by the intervention of a totally unforeseeable event, such as the outbreak of war, or an act of God such as an earthquake or hurricane. Under the American commercial code (UCC) the standard for this relief is one of commercial impracticability. In contrast, many civil law jurisdictions apply the term force majeure to this problem. Under CISG, the standard is based on the concept of impediments to performance. Because of the differences between these standards, parties might be well advised to draft their own force majeure, hardship, or excusable delays clause. The ICC publication, "Force Majeure and Hardship" provides a sample force majeure clause which can be incorporated by reference, as well as a hardship clause which must be expressly integrated in the contract. In addition, the ICC Model provides a similar, somewhat more concise formulation of a force majeure clause. When the seller wishes to devise his own excusable delays clause, he will seek to anticipate in its provision such potential difficulties as those related to obtaining government authorisations, changes in customs duties or regulations, drastic fluctuations in labour, materials, energy, or transportation prices, etc.