• 제목/요약/키워드: the tender law

검색결과 13건 처리시간 0.023초

국제전자정보거래(國際電子情報去來)에 관한 입법동향(立法動向) (Recent Developments in Law of International Electronic Information Transactions)

  • 허해관
    • 무역상무연구
    • /
    • 제23권
    • /
    • pp.155-219
    • /
    • 2004
  • This paper focuses on two recent legislative developments in electronic commerce: the "Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act" ("UCITA") of USA and the "preliminary draft convention on the use of data message in [international trade] [the context of international contracts]" ("preliminary draft Convention") of UNCITRAL. UCITA provides rules contracts for computer information transactions. UCITA supplies modified contract formation rules adapted to permit and to facilitate electronic contracting. UCITA also adjusts commonly recognized warranties as appropriate for computer information transactions; for example, to recognize the international context in connection with protection against infringement and misappropriation, and First Amendment considerations involved with informational content. Furthermore, UCITA adapts traditional rules as to what is acceptable performance to the context of computer information transactions, including providing rules for the protection of the parties concerning the electronic regulation of performance to clarify that the appropriate general rule is one of material breach with respect to cancellation (rather than so-called perfect tender). UCITA also supplies guidance in the case of certain specialized types of contracts, e.g., access contracts and for termination of contracts. While for the most part carrying over the familiar rules of Article 2 concerning breach when appropriate in the context of the tangible medium on which the information is fixed, but also adapting common law rules and rules from Article 2 on waiver, cure, assurance and anticipatory breach to the context of computer information transactions, UCITA provides a remedy structure somewhat modeled on that of Article 2 but adapted in significant respects to the different context of a computer information transaction. For example, UCITA contains very important limitations on the generally recognized common law right of self-help as applicable in the electronic context. The UNCITRAL's preliminary draft Convention applies to the use of data messages in connection with an existing or contemplated contract between parties whose places of business are in different States. Nothing in the Convention affects the application of any rule of law that may require the parties to disclose their identities, places of business or other information, or relieves a party from the legal consequences of making inaccurate or false statements in that regard. Likewise, nothing in the Convention requires a contract or any other communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract to be made or evidenced in any particular form. Under the Convention, a communication, declaration, demand, notice or request that the parties are required to make or choose to make in connection with an existing or contemplated contract, including an offer and the acceptance of an offer, is conveyed by means of data messages. Also, the Convention provides for use of automated information systems for contract formation: a contract formed by the interaction of an automated information system and a person, or by the interaction of automated information systems, shall not be denied on the sole ground that no person reviewed each of the individual actions carried out by such systems or the resulting agreement. Further, the Convention provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a contract concluded by a person that accesses an automated information system of another party has no legal effect and is not enforceable if the person made an error in a data message and (a) the automated information system did not provide the person with an opportunity to prevent or correct the error; (b) the person notifies the other party of the error as soon as practicable when the person making the error learns of it and indicates that he or she made an error in the data message; (c) The person takes reasonable steps, including steps that conform to the other party's instructions, to return the goods or services received, if any, as a result of the error or, if instructed to do so, to destroy such goods or services.

  • PDF

A Comparative Study on Requirements for the Buyer's Right to Withhold Performance for the Seller's Actual Non-Performance under the CISG and the CESL

  • Lee, Byung-Mun;Kim, Dong-Young
    • Journal of Korea Trade
    • /
    • 제24권8호
    • /
    • pp.101-120
    • /
    • 2020
  • Purpose - The buyer's right to withhold performance is a useful and important self-help remedy to protect himself from the seller's breach of contract, and it is also the coercive means to induce the seller to perform his part of contract. However, the buyer's exercise of such a right often exposes himself to the risk of breaching the contract. This is generally due to his ignorance when he is entitled to the right and also uncertainties inherent in the law. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine what the requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right for the seller's actual breach of contract. Design/methodology - In order to achieve the purposes of the study, it executes a comparative study of the rules as to the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance under the CISG and the CESL. It mainly focuses on performance due, the seller's non-performance, the buyer's readiness to perform and the requirement of notice. Findings - The main findings of this comparative study can be summarized as follows: Although the CISG has no expressive provision for the buyer's general right to withhold performance for the seller's actual non-performance, it may be inferred from the general principles the CISG underlies, synallagmatic nature of the contract. In addition, it can be drawn by analogy from relevant provisions of the CISG. On the other hand, the CESL expressively provides that the buyer has a general right to withhold performance where the seller fails to tender performance or perform the contract. Therefore, it seems that the position of CESL is rather easier and more apparent to allow the buyer to withhold performance for the seller's non-performance. Originality/value - Most of the existing studies on the right to withhold performance under the CISG have centered on the right to withhold performance for an anticipatory breach of contract. On the other hand, there have been few prior studies on the right to withhold performance for the actual nonperformance during a contractual period of performance. Therefore, this paper examined the requirements for the buyer's right to withhold performance under the CISG and the CESL in a comparative way for the seller's actual breach of obligation. In this conclusion, it may provide practical and legal considerations and implications for business people who are not certain about the right to withhold performance.

자본시장법상 외부자거래의 규제와 개선방안 (Outsider Trading Regulation under the Capital Markets Act)

  • 장근영
    • 법제연구
    • /
    • 제41호
    • /
    • pp.367-399
    • /
    • 2011
  • 현행 자본시장법 제174조는 상장법인을 중심으로 정보접근의 우월적 지위가 있는 자들에 한정하여 미공개중요정보의 이용을 금지하고 있다. 아울러 규제대상정보의 범위도 상장법인의 업무 등에 관한 정보에 한정하며, 시장정보는 예외적으로 규제하고 있다. 그러나 현행법상 규제되지 않는 미공개정보의 이용행위 중에는 정보 비대칭의 이용이라는 불공정한 속성을 가진 경우가 상당하며, 특히 외부자에 의한 정보이용의 경우가 그러하다. 본 논문은 이와 같이 현행법상 규제의 범위에 포섭되지 않는 외부자거래의 다양한 유형을 그 이용대상정보가 내부정보인가 외부정보인가에 따라 구분한 뒤, 각각 규제의 필요성을 검토하고 개선안을 모색하였다. 현재 규제되지 않는 외부자거래의 유형으로는 (i) 불법적으로 지득한 내부정보를 이용한 거래, (ii) 합법적으로 우연히 지득한 내부정보를 이용한 거래, (iii) 정보생성자 및 그 관련자의 외부정보에 기한 거래 등을 들 수 있다. 이 가운데 (i)과 (iii)의 경우는 자본시장법상 포괄조항인 제178조 제1항 제1호의 적극적 해석을 통해 규제가 가능할 것으로 판단된다. 우연히 지득한 정보를 이용하는 (ii)의 경우는 규제의 필요성이 그리 크지 않은 것으로 보인다. 향후 입법자가 자본시장법의 미공개정보이용 규제의 틀을 회사관계 중심규제에서 완전한 정보보유 중심규제로 바꾸게 되면 규제의 공백 없이 미공개정보를 '이용'한 모든 경우가 규율될 수 있을 것이다. 그렇지만 정보보유 중심규제로의 전환을 선택하기 위해서는 그로 인한 장단점을 충분히 검토해야 하며, 결국 미공개정보이용의 규제 목적이 무엇인가를 염두에 두어야 할 것이다. 그리고 이러한 규제 체계의 전환이 있을 때까지는 현행법상의 적용 가능한 조문을 적극적으로 활용할 것이 요청된다.