• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.25-62
• /
• 2014

Avoidance refers to the process of terminating a contract because of a non-performance. It implies the right of the aggrieved party to refuse to accept further performance by the other side and to refuse to perform one's own counter-obligations, on a permanent basis. The 1980 U.N. Convention on the International Sale of Goods, hereinafter 'CISG', regulates in Arts. 81-84 the effects of avoidance. The primary effect is that prescribed in Art. 81.1 CISG: both parties are released from their obligations under the contract, subject to any damages which may be due. As seen, the CISG deals with the legal consequences of avoidance, including restitutionary claims. However, a closer look to CISG provisions on restitution reveals that certain matters are left open. For instance, the CISG leaves open questions such as the costs, place and time where restitution is to be made. In this particular, the Convention remains silent as to the consequences of a delayed or refused restitution or the buyer's liability when the goods are damaged or destroyed after the avoidance. In light of the above, the present article attempts to determine the extent to which the modes of restitution are regulated in the CISG and how possible gaps are to be filled.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2003

The CISG approach was intended to make the remedial system clear, but produced ambiguity, and complexity. The CISG does not differentiate between main, auxiliary and participatory obligations. There is no distinction between breaches of main or breaches of auxiliary obligations, rather, a distinction is made between fundamental and other breaches of contract. Articles 25 gives the definition of fundamental breach of contract. This concept is the essential of avoidance and remedial system in the CISG. This concept, however, is ambiguous. The fact that the fundamentality of a breach of contract in many cases is the condition for an avoidance of contract, is expression of the trend of the CISG to preserve contracts, which I consider as essential in international trade. The elements which define a substantial detriment are extremely complex. It will become obvious that the relevant detriment is not a static element, but in many instances occurs only when the breach of contract continues. It should be added that it is the circumstances of each individual case which are relevant. It is to be stressed that a fundamental breach of contract must constitute also a non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.207-229
• /
• 2012

In IP 7 and LCCP 201, Law Commission considers the insured's duty of good faith after the formation of the contract. This article intends to review and analyse the legal implications of proposals in IP 7 and LCCP 201. The results of analysis are following. First, Law Commission propose to end the remedy of avoidance under MIA 1906 section 17, because avoidance of past claims is unprincipled, impractical and unnecessarily harsh. Secondly, LC proposes that an insured who makes a fraudulent claim should forfeit the whole claim which the fraud relates, but that the fraud should not invalidate previous and legitimate claims. Thirdly, LC proposes to introduce a statutory right for the insurer to claim damages for the reasonable, foreseeable costs of investigate a fraudulent claim in specific circumstances and that damages would be limited to those cases where the insurer can show an actual, net loss. Finally, LC provisionally propose that an express fraud clause should be upheld in business insurance, whereas in consumer insurance, any term which purports to give the insurer greater rights in relation to fraudulent claims that those set out in statute would be of no effect.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 1993

This study is focused on the review of buyer's remedy resulting from the breach of seller's duty in contracts for the international sale of goods focusing on UNCCIS, 1980 and the problems and suggestions of proper ideas for solving the problems. First problem on the buyer's remedy is related to the breach of seller's duty on del ivory of the contracted goods. When seller has failed to deliver the contracted goods to buyer within the stipulated periods, buyer can treat the contract as avoided and claim damages from seller. By the way, since UNCCIS does not provide any stipulation on the time of buyer's avoidance of the contract, buyer can delay the time of avoidance when the price of contracted goods is rising rapidly and enlarge the amount of damages, Since this stipulation is clearly unreasonable, proper solutions are required for UNCCIS. Second problem is related to the breach of seller's duty on deliver of goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packged in the manner required by the contract. When seller has failed to deliver goods which are confirm with the contract, buyer may have one of the two rights of damages and the price reduction according to UNCCIS provided that he does not choose the avoidance. But, since the character and position of the price reduction as a buyer's remedy are not sufficient solutions, more detailed review on this point is required. Third, Seller's duty to provide documents is very important for overseas trade, but UNCCIS does not provide any specific buyer's remedy in comparison with the other remedy and also does not provide any stipulation on the Letter of Credit which have important roles for a device of setting payment in overseas trade. This means that trade customs and practice have not sufficiently reflected in UNCCIS. As the problems mentioned above may decrease the evaluation of buyer's remedy in UNCCIS and, furthermore, that of UNCCIS itself, proper solutions on these points are needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2009

On April 11, 1980, the "United Nations on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" ("CISG") was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and approved by a diplomatic conference in Vienna providing uniform law for international sales of goods. It took effect as of March 1, 2005, in Korea. It is set forth on the seller's remedies for breach by the buyer Section III (Art. 61 - 65) under the CISG. In this study, the focus is only on the seller's notice fixing additional final period for performance (Art. 63) and the right to avoid the contract (Art. 64), with examination on some relevant foreign arbitral awards rendered by the ICC and the CIETAC together. Article 63 provides that the seller may fix an additional period of time for reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligation. It was found from the above arbitral awards that the concept of 'reasonable length' should be decided on a case-by-case basis, given the specific circumstances in the case [Art. 63(1)]. It is provided that unless the seller has received a notice that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract in accordance with Article 63(2). Article 64(1) provides the means and grounds for avoidance of the contract, which can be avoided 1) when the breach of the buyer amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or 2) when the additional period of time is fixed by the seller, unless the buyer declares that he will not perform so within the period of fixed time. As we examined in the above arbitral awards, it was held that the contract is avoided when the seller sends the final notice stating that he will avoid the contract, after the expiration of the additional period of time fixed by the seller in the ICC award. On the contrary, it was held that the contract should be deemed to be avoided exactly when the expiration of additional period noted in the avoidance notice is elapsed in the CIETAC award. Article 64(2) sets time limits for avoidance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.87-111
• /
• 2005

The buyer must pay the price under the contract and must take delivery of the goods of contract. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and such formalities under the contract. The remedial system of the rights of the seller is easier than that of the buyer, for the obligations of the former are less complicated. The seller has the right to avoid a contract provided two conditions are fulfilled : (a) the buyer must have committed a fundamental breach of contract, or (b) the additional period for performance set by the seller in the case of non-performance must have expired. A decision is more difficult to take in the case of a delay where there is no fixed-term contract, to clarify the situation the seller may set a Nachfrist. It is essential that the contracting parties in Korea should understand the provisions of CISG.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.12a
• /
• pp.79-104
• /
• 2004

The buyer must pay the price under the contract and must take delivery of the goods of contract. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and such formalities under the contract. The remedial system of the rights of the seller is easier than that of the buyer, for the obligations of the former are less complicated. The seller has the right to avoid a contract provided two conditions are fulfilled : (a) the buyer must have committed a fundamental breach of contract, or (b) the additional period for performance set by the seller in the case of non-performance must have expired. A decision is more difficult to take in the case of a delay where there is no fixed-term contract, to clarify the situation the seller may set a Nachfrist. It is essential that the contracting parties in Korea should understand the provisions of CISG.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• 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.

• 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.