• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.21 no.9
• /
• pp.115-121
• /
• 2023

Purpose: This study aimed to deal with disputes between the seller and the buyer in connection with the Letter of Credit (LC) in a sales contract. The Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides the rules on the fundamental breaches which can lead to termination of the sales contract but the CISG is not enough to govern issues arising from the LC disputes when the sales contract is not clear about the payment terms. This paper tried to find some solutions to the disputes by considering international rules, such as the Principles of European Contract Law (PECL). Research design, data and methodology: The methodology applied in this study was an analysis of some court decisions and extended literature review. Results: The study revealed that in contracts for the sale of international goods, the buyer was obliged to open an LC as manner of payment. If the buyer failed to open an LC or amend the terms of the LC, the seller could avoid the contract because this could deprive the seller's expected interest. Conclusions: Few studies in Korea have been comprehensively analyzed in terms of the obligations of regarding the LC with respect to the CISG in court cases. This study suggests safeguarding the buyer and seller when the LC is considered absolute or conditional.

• Journal of Korea Entertainment Industry Association
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.323-335
• /
• 2021

The purpose of this study is to organize issues of exclusive contracts for celebrities, which have been a major part of the existing industry, in preparation for various contract disputes in the media entertainment industry, and disputes in the media entertainment industry. According to the law case analysis conducted to achieve the purpose of the study, the court judged that the exclusive contract that did not conform to society's conventional wisdom was not effective, and that it was difficult to maintain the contract because it was not a normal contract. In addition, the court believed that unreasonable contracts using unfair trading status and overly long contracts were all reasons for termination. According to the court's judgment, the current standard contract requires about four revisions. First, clarification of contract termination conditions, second, clarification of payment date of revenue allocation, third, diversification of contract periods, and fourth, realistic modification of penalty provisions. Standard contracts have been enacted after several discussions, but there are still many things to revise and supplement. It will not end up with the preparation and use of contracts, but it will be necessary to continuously revise them to suit the industry's situation.

• International conference on construction engineering and project management
• /
• 2005.10a
• /
• pp.699-704
• /
• 2005

Normally, monetary penalties for breach of agreement will be stipulated in the contract. The contractor parties, who fail to fulfill the agreement, are required to pay the other parties a certain amount or proportion of money as a fine. However, it is worth our study - whether or not the scope of monetary penalty implementation and bases for determination of a fine will cover the losses of social and administrative costs incurred by the interruption of the contract. This research is about the best timing for government to cancel the freeway repair work contracts. Under the goal of the maximum social welfare, the limitation of government spending for the social and administrative costs invoked by interruption of contracts will have to be considered to attain the best timing of contracts' suspension or deferment. According to the factors of social and administrative costs, the best time point is calculated to reduce the loss of the aforesaid costs, which can also be used as theoretical basis for the future road-widening construction at home.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.49-72
• /
• 2009

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), one of the Government agencies, has been preparing a standard model form of Exclusive Contract for Entertainment Management (hereinafter referred to as "Exclusive Contract") to eliminate some types of unfairness that placed entertainers at disadvantage such as forced PR activities or activities without payment, excessive privacy infringement, and exemption of payment after the termination of the exclusive contract. The said Exclusive Contract was drafted by The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (the "KCAB") in association with the Korean Entertainment Law Society (the "KELS") and KCAB has persistently persuaded Corea Entertainment Management Association (the "CEMA"; mainly actors management) and Korea Entertainment Producers' Association (the "KEPA"; mainly singers management) to adopt the above-mentioned Exclusive Contract, respectively, and especially arbitration clause instead of litigation. After KCAB's tens of meetings and persuasion, they finally decided to accept KCAB's offer and they have submitted the Exclusive Contract drafted by KCAB and KELS to KFTC on April 17, 2009. The arbitration clause drafted by KCAB was already accepted by unfair contract examination division and unfair contract advisory committee and the final standard model contract was supposed to be publicly announced on June 30, 2009 after final examination of unfair contract standing committee, but the announcement has been delayed owing to severe controversies between the concerned parties, such as CEMA, KAU (Korea Artists' Union), KEPA and KSA (Korea Singers' Association) related to delicate issues like contract period and ownership of intellectual properties, etc. But it is expected the announcement will be made very soon by which the contract will include the originally drafted arbitration clause by KCAB. Therefore, it is very timely to examine the various legal issues which can be arisen out of disputes, and arbitration appropriateness with Exclusive Contract of Entertainment Management on this paper.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.273-290
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the buyer's right to avoid the contract under SGA and CISG. Design/methodology/approach - This paper has conducted literature reviews to analyze the right to avoid the contract of the buyer based on the comparative study. Findings - Under s. 11(3) of SGA, the breach of a condition and an intermediate which deprives the buyer substantially of the whole benefit of the contract may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. But under Art. 49 of CISG, the buyer has the right to terminate the contract where the seller's failure to performance amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. Regarding the breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG, the buyer should take into account where the seller's breach is fundamental or not. Moreover, an anticipatory breach can give rise to a right to avoid the contract. The anticipatory breach of a condition justifies termination. The breach of an intermediate and the breach under CISG require an anticipatory fundamental breach of the contract. Under SGA, the buyer has to prove an anticipatory breach in fact but CISG does not require virtual certainty, which SGA has stricter criteria to assess an anticipatory breach. Research implications or Originality - Comparative study helps to understand the nature of provisions under SGA and CISG and suggests practical advice to choose applicable laws. SGA gives more certainty to classify a contractual term. In case of the breach of a condition including the anticipatory breach under SGA, the buyer does not have to ask how much serious the breach is. But CISG requires the fundamental breach of the contract, which means that the buyer has the more burden of proof compared with SGA.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.81-109
• /
• 2021

This paper review about the relationship between the prohibition against medical refusal and the principle of private autonomy in medical contracts. The obligation to this Prohibition in Medical Law does not restrict the liberty of contracting a medical contract. On the other hand, the prohibition limits the freedom to terminate medical contracts. Medical contracts can be terminated if the trust between doctors and patients is vanished. However certain restrictions should be placed on termination of the medical contract, because termination of the contract should not be detrimental to patients' health. According to the current medical law the medical contract is to be enforced in principle and can be revoked only with justifiable reason. At the Civil Code on Medical Contracts the freedom to terminate the medical contract is permitted, but this paper suggests the restrictions of the revocation under certain conditions. The Criminal Punishment Regulations against medical refusal should be removed. Refusal the provide medical service should be regulated by administrative sanctions under the National Health Insurance Act's obligation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.221-243
• /
• 2007

A party to a contract is bound to perform its contractual duties. But outside events may make performance impossible, physically or legally. In such a situation a party may wish to plead "force majeure" as an excuse for failure to perform. The laws of most countries have provisions which dealt with force majeure. These provisions, however, vary from country to country and may not meet the parties' requirement in international contracts. Therefore, parties to international contracts are frequently in need of contract clauses on force majeure. There are many force majeure clauses in standard forms or individually negotiated. The ICC has drawn up provisions which aim at providing assistance for parties when they are making contracts. The force majeure clause grants relief from contractual sanctions and includes provisions for suspension and termination of contract. The purpose of this study is to examine "ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003" in the international sales contract. For this purpose, firstly this study deals with the major contents of the ICC Force Majeure Clause 1985 and 2003. Secondly this study considers the related provisions under CISG, PICC, PECL and the force majeure clause in Model International Sale Contract. Thirdly this study compares ICC Force Majeure Clause 2003 with the relative provisions under CISG, PICC, PECL and the force majeure clause in Model International Sale Contract. It should be noted that the parties often need to adapt the content of this clause so as to take account of the particular circumstances of the individual contract. This paper contributes to help the parties to a contract to draft the meaningful "Force Majeure Clause" containing more precise and elaborate provisions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.23-47
• /
• 2015

European Commission drafted and proposed the Common European Sales Law(CESL) to the European Parliament for the realization of a uniform set of international private law rules within the EU internal market. Since its purpose is for free international commercial activities for the sale of goods, for the supply of digital content and for related services, it was proposed to enable EU Member States to adopt or supplement as their substantive law according to their options. This study is relate to the legal bases on termination of a contract under CESL, they are composed of three parts: damages and interest, restitution and prescription. Damages and interest are divided into damages, general provisions on interest on late payments, and late payment by traders. Damages are explained by dividing into right to damages, general measure of damages, foreseeability of loss, loss attributable to creditor, reduction of loss, substitute transaction, and current price. Restitution is described by dividing into restitution on revocation, payment for monetary value, payment for use and interest on money received, compensation for expenditure and equitable modification. Prescription is explained by dividing into general provisions, periods of prescription and their commencement and extension of periods of prescription. General provisions explain right subject to prescription into a right to enforce performance of an obligation and any right ancillary to such a right. Regarding period of prescription, the short one is two years and the long one is ten years. However, in the case of a right to damages for personal injuries, period of prescription for such right is thirty years. Regarding commencement, the short one begins to run from the time when the creditor has become, or could be expected to have become, aware of the facts as a result of which the right can be exercised, while the long one begins to run from the time when the debtor has to perform. However, in the case of a right to damages, the CESL clarifies that it begins to run from the time of the act which gives rise the right.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2017

In this paper, The Supreme Court of Korea 2016. 1. 28. 2015Da9769 was reviewed. In the previous case, Korean Supreme Court 2009Da17417 for the element to requirement for permission of the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, the patient's consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments was assumed a declaration of intention to terminate the contract. But the consent for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments corresponds not to those. The consent for medical treatments is not the juristic acts but the real acts. If the presumptive intention about these withdrawal regards as the termination of medical contract, the contract must be up to the starting the civil proceedings. According to this case, although the partial cancellation of medical contract is admitted, on the other hand medical expenses obligation ist exempted only after the final decision. At the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments the medical obligation ist exempted because of the inability to providing the medical payment, which confirmed by the final decision about the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments. Therefore the judgement of this case ist appropriate in that sense, the medical obligation ist waived only after the final decision. However that legal basis lies not at the partial cancel but at the partial inability.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).