• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.21-26
• /
• 2006

A contract for shipbuilding is usually a complicated process and involves a statement of rights, and obligations and responsibilities to which each party agrees vis-a vis the other. Most countries are now well settled with regard to liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical injury and on the other hand, for pure economic loss to remote owners of chattels. Where there is a breach of either contractual warranty or an implied warranty, there may be admiralty jurisdiction, depending once again on the situs of the event and its relationship to traditional maritime activity. First of all, this thesis deals with the contents of contract under English Law. Secondly, this thesis analyse ' s the liability of shipbuilders in Products Liability under English, United States, German and korean Law comparisons. In conclusion, the author gives some suggestions as countermeasures to Products Liability for the shipbuilders in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.65-75
• /
• 2022

On 11 June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the lower court was justified for the subject case, that the plaintiff could assert the defendant's liability for default due to incomplete performance even though the warranty period for defects which stipulated in the particular condition of the contract has expired. In Korean civil law, the concurrent between the exclusion period for defect warranty and the extinctive prescription for default liability is conceded, since the exclusion period and the extinctive prescription have their respective purposes in law, therefore these two should be judged by harmonizing them based on that they are mutually related. If the subject judgment is generalized, there is no reason to exist for the provisions of defect liability in the construction contract any longer. This study examines the subject judgments through the general theory and precedent case studies on the defect liability and default liability, then derived any problems that may arise if the subject judgment is generalized. In addition, based on a realistic model, it was suggested for a practical improvement method that both the provisions of the warranty period shall be changed realistic and to stipulate the character of its nature as written provisions in the contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.67-85
• /
• 2009

In English Law it seems that it is essential to apply the principle of equilibrium in the contract, however, it does not seemed to apply as the general rule of the principle of contract. Especially it seems that English Court didn't pay attention to the principle of equilibrium in 18th century. If one of the party do not appeal the equilibrium of the contract, it does not make any difference even today. However the Court may cancel or withdraw the construction of contract between the parties where the principle of equilibrium is damaged by fundamental problems like just-price. In French Law it seems that they have more wide definition of the principle of equilibrium. The French Court may consider that the application of good faith is the performance of condition of the contract between the parties and has no power to relieve of one party of his expressed obligations or warranty. In German Law, it seems that the principle of good faith is fundamental to take into account interest of the parties. They may agree to supply information or not to interfere with a commercial agent regarding performance and maintenance of the contract.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• Journal of Korea Society of Industrial Information Systems
• /
• v.5 no.4
• /
• pp.39-46
• /
• 2000

New products often have in-service reliability problem despite an intensive development program. Therefore reliability data must be collected and analyzed, and improvements designed and implemented. A type of reliability incentive contract which has recently attracted a lot of attention is reliability improvement warranty(RIW). It has been employed by military, airlines, telecommunication systems, and public utilities. An RIW contract requires that the supplies carries out all repairs, modify the equipment to improve its reliability, and provides all spates needed, for a fixed period, for once-off fee. This paper presents the reliability growth analysis and management methods for in-service MC68 microprocessor, which is the main component of the base station controller in PCS(Personal Communication Service) telecommunication system. The methods will provide guidelines to monitor reliability program in planning RIW contract.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.35-58
• /
• 2013

In Mash & Murrell, Diplock J said that "there is an implied warranty not merely that they shall be merchantable at the time they are put on the vessel, but that they shall be in such a state that they can endure the normal journey and be in a merchantable condition upon arrival." But in The Mercini Lady, Field J said that "the goods would be of satisfactory quality not only when the goods were delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter." and "The proposed conditions were not excluded by clause 18. ${\cdots}$ clause 18 was not to be construed as extending to conditions ${\cdots}$". In relation to the problems on validity of the goods conformity clauses in FOB contracts, when considering Lord Wright's comments ("${\cdots}$ hence apt and precise words must be used to exclude it: the words guarantee or warranty are not sufficiently clear.") in Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass, FOB contracts are fundamentally one that seller's duty to deliver the goods is completing at the port of shipment and "principle of party autonomy" in Contract Law, I do not think that the terms implied by section 14 of the SGA and Common Law cannot absolutely excluded by the goods conformity clauses in sale contracts. Therefore, in order to exclude the implied terms, the parties must very clearly spell out this in the relevant clauses.

• Proceedings of the KSR Conference
• /
• 2008.06a
• /
• pp.1479-1485
• /
• 2008

This paper shows the result of study on the detailed applicable procedure of software Escrow account applied for rolling stock. The customer as end-user requires software source code, related critical technical documents etc. about software based system of train for maintenance purpose through software modification and enhancement after completion of warranty period. Otherwise, it is not easy to keep up with the customer's requirement of demanding supplier's exclusive information because it is considered as intellectual property rights of supplier as software developer. Therefore, the main contractor(normally called as Car-builder) need to introduce software Escrow service in order to coordinate the different a standpoint between software developer and end-user. Software Escrow is a legal arrangement in which an software Escrow packages (software source code, software development tool, build process, proprietary information, copyright and etc.) is deposited into and Escrow account under the trust of a reliable third party (Escrow agent) depending on mutual agreement on Escrow contract condition as signing off Escrow agreement document. This paper deals with the study on the detailed procedure about the following general category of Escrow procedure and purpose to apply this specific procedure of Escrow into the future project onward.