• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제15권2호
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제17권
• /
• pp.37-69
• /
• 2002

This study sumed up general rules for measuring damages based on SGA, UCC, CISG, PICC legislated by on the base of English decision of Hadley v. Baxendale Concluding marks as follows : (1) General rule for measuring damages is a standard rule that is developed to place the aggrieved party in as good a position as if the party in breach performed the contract. (2) Damages may also be accompanied by other remedies (3) Damages has alternative character (4) Damages give the aggrieved party full compensation (5) It is enough for the aggrieved party simply to prove the non-performance for damages (6) Occurence of harm must be reasonably certain and a direct consequence of non-performance (7) while Rule for measuring damages an UCC is concrete CISG is comprehensive. (8) Although rule of UCC and CISG for damages measurement is a similar in many aspect but there are in expression and range of damage between them. (9) the result of this study will give researchers the opportunity to develope in depth and their report of research also contribute chance to perform business their effective oversea's trade

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.25-52
• /
• 2009

An acceptance is effected by a statement or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent. Silence or inactivity does not in itself amount to acceptance. An acceptance of an offer becomes effective at the moment the indication of assent reaches the offeror. It uses in stating rules on whether an acceptance is too late to form a contract and an offeree may withdraw an acceptance after transmission. The offeree may indicate assent by performing an act such as one relating to the dispatch of the goods or payment of the price without notice to the offeror. The acceptance by action also is to be performed within the time fixed between the parties or within a resonable time. However, an oral offer must be accepted immediately by an offeree. After an acceptance by action, the offeree avoid revocation of an offer by giving the offeror prompt notice to that effect. Even if a reply an offer contains additions, limitations or other modifications is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counter offer, the reply to an offer contains additional and different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance unless the offeror objects to the discrepancy or to that effect. Additional or different terms relating to the price, payment, quality & quantity of the goods, time & place of delivery, a party's liability or the settlement of disputes are considered to materially alter the terms of the offer.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2) which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods.