• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

The seller and the buyer write down the agreed details in the trade contract as trade contract clauses. In the case where a letter of credit is agreed to be the payment condition, the buyer shall open a letter of credit to the seller with the shipping date specified in the trade contract through its bank. In this case, the legal relationship between the performance date of the trade contract and the shipment date of the letter of credit, the change of the performance date of the trade contract due to the change of the trade contract and the change of the shipment date specified in the letter of credit, the seller's letter of credit A problem arises in the legal interpretation of the approval period and the change request period. Therefore, this paper analyzed the precedents of the Seongnam Branch of the Suwon District Court and the Seoul High Court related to these legal issues. The performance date of a trade contract is the seller's delivery date and the buyer's payment date. In the letter of credit transaction, the date of performance of the trade contract is regarded as the date of shipment and the date of negotiation of documents specified in the letter of credit. The seller must decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days after receiving the letter of credit from the buyer. After this period has elapsed, the seller cannot refuse the letter of credit. However, if the buyer is unable to decide whether to accept the letter of credit within 5 banking days due to reasons attributable to the buyer, the delivery date specified in the letter of credit will be extended. If the seller requests an amendment to the letter of credit, the buyer must accept it and open the letter of credit the seller desires to the seller. If the buyer refuses the seller's request to change the letter of credit, company A has the obligation to change and reopen the letter of credit as requested by company B. Expect by agreeing on the quotation As it is a fundamental breach of contract stipulated in Article 25 of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, company B can cancel the trade contract and claim damages from company A. Compensation for damages caused by Company A's breach of the trade contract shall be an amount equal to the loss suffered by Company B as a result of the breach, including loss of profits.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• pp.103-132
• /
• 2009

In international sales of goods, the buyer must pay the price for the goods as required by the contract and CISG, The buyer's this obligation includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract, which includes providing the seller with relevant letter of credit through the issuing bank. Where the parties have not stipulated the time limit within which the credit should be opened, but there is an agreed date or period for shipment, the time limit for the L/C opening should be calculated back from the agreed date of shipment or the first date of shipment, while, in addition, the buyer should open the L/C sufficiently earlier than the shipment date in order for the seller to be able to know the L/C's opening before beginning to ship the goods. The L/C provided the buyer should conform to the contract of sale. Therefore, for example, when an unconfirmed L/C is provided violating the agreement or the L/C opened states that, under a FOB contract, a "freght prepaid" bill of lading shall be presented as a required document of the L/C, the buyer has failed to perform his obligation. If the buyer fails to perform his obligations to provide the letter of credit, the seller may require the buyer to perform that obligation; may fix an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance of the obligation; or, the seller may declare the contract avoided, if the failure amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or if the buyer does not, within the additional period of time fixed by the seller, perform the obligation; and the seller claim damages. However, when a relevant L/C has been issued for the seller, as a rule, he cannot ask directly for the buyer to pay the price before avail himself of the L/C first.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.251-280
• /
• 2008

A party to the charter will not be able to rely upon the doctrine of frustration if an event which makes further performance impossible has been caused by his breach of the charter. Strictly speaking, this is not a situation of frustration at all but rather a case of discharge of the contract by breach. In the Sea Angel case, the defendant entered into a Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement with owners of the casualty on the LOF 2000 form, incorporating the SCOPIC clause. The time charter was on the terms of the Shelltime 4 form. This case the trial of the action brought by the claimants owners of the vessel Sea Angel claiming outstanding hire from the defendant charterers. This Case was issued whether charterparty frustrated by refusal of port authorities to issue "No Demand Certificate" allowing port clearance pending payment of oil spillage clean-up costs. The court concluded that no attempt had yet been made to invoke the assistance of the Pakistani court to obtain the release of the vessel. There was not so radical or fundamental a change in the obligation assumed by defendant as to establish frustration. The purpose of this study aims to analyse frustration and time charter in the Sea Angel case.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 1994

One of the fundamental duty of the assured in a marine insurance contract is maintaining seaworthiness of the ship insured. Since duty of the seaworthiness of ship is a shipowners implied warranty in the marine insurance, the breach of the duty of seaworthiness by assured is recognized as immunity for the underwriter. This is a measure to protect the underwriter through prevention of unexpected casualties which may be occurred from the unseaworthiness. In the Korean Marine Insurance Act the legal character of the assured's duty of seaworthiness is not clear whether it is a legal duty or contracted one. Accordingly, in this paper the author pointed out that the duty of seaworthiness of the ship should be interpreted according to the English Law. As a conclusion, the hull insurance does not require even implied warranty concerning seaworthiness, since it is recognized as one of implied fundamental warranty of the English Marine Insurance Act. Especially, this issue pointed out is very meaningful and advisable under the consideration of the existing conditions of the marine insurance regime for the distant-water fishing vessels and the catch carriers in Korea.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

This paper examines the seller's obligation to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the sales contract as set forth in articles 30 and 34 of the CISG. Article 30 obliges the seller to band over documents relating to the goods. This obligation to band over documents is further elaborated in article 34. According to article 34, the documents must be tendered at the time and place, and in the form, required by the contract. If the seller has delivered non-conforming documents before the agreed time, he has the right to remedy the defects if this would not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or expense. However, the buyer can claim any damages suffered despite the seller's remedy. Specific emphasis is placed on the interplay between the CISG and Incoterms. Incoterms contain detailed rules governing the obligations of the seller to provide for documents. Incoterms constitute international trade usage under articles 9(1) and 9(2) CISG and supplement construction of CISG with UCP under L/C transaction. In the event of failure by seller to deliver the necessary documents, the buyer has certain remedies available, such as the right to claim damages, the right to demand specific performance, and the right to repair. Furthermore, the failure to deliver the required documents under contract constitute a fundamental breach of the underlying sales contract as defined by article 25 of the CISG by the seller, and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract entirely article 49. However, it is stressed that since one of the main principles of the CISG is the preservation of the contract, the avoidance of the contract should remain a remedy of last resort.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.175-185
• /
• 2013

The judgement which is subject of research has denied legal rescission of division of the inherited property by agreement based on (1) the fact that the division of inherited property terminated at the time of concluding mutual agreement in its nature while only the relationship of claim and obligation between the inheritor who has paid for such obligation and the inheritor who has acquired such obligation in the mutual agreement remains (2) and the fact that the legal stability is considerably hindered as the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect becomes unavoidable in case of approving the legal rescission of the division of the inherited property by agreement. But it is reasonable to also approve legal rescission on the division of the inherited property by agreement in case the division by agreement actually has the nature such as conditional donation between joint heirs (1) from the fact that the division of the inherited property by agreement gets the nature of disposal equivalent to exchange, transfer and abandonment of share between joint heirs in actuality, (2) and the fact that there are no other theories in approving the validity of mutually agreed rescission despite the fact that the re-partition of inherited property having retroactive effect is unavoidable even in case of the mutually agreed rescission of the division by agreement among all joint heirs. However, as the division of the inherited property by agreement is a contract that gets concluded only if all joint heirs participate, even the legal rescission for the reason of not fulfilling the obligations paid by one party of the heirs during the division by agreement must be considered as possible only by expression of intentions from all other joint heirs excluding this one party.