• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제69권
• /
• 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.

• 한국항해항만학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국항해항만학회 2006년도 추계학술대회 논문집(제2권)
• /
• pp.21-26
• /
• 2006

선박건조계약은 일반적으로 각 당사자의 권리와 의무 및 상대방에 대한 책임 등에 대하여 내용이 상당히 복잡하고 구체적으로 규정되며, 계약의 최종 목적은 선박 건조자가 완성된 선박을 매수인인 선주에게 이전하는 것이다. 이 계약은 영국법, 미국법, 개정독일민법(BGB), 그리고 기타 여러국가의 법에서 매매계약으로 보고 있으며, 반면에 한국과 일본 그밖의 여러국가에서는 도급계약으로 취급한다. 특별히 최근 여러 국가에서 안전상 사람에 대하여 상해를 일으킨 경우, 불법행위에 의한 제조자의 제조물책임이 잘 정착되어 있는 실정이다. 반면, 제3자에 대한 순수 경계적인 손실에 대해서는 그 물건의 소유자에게 그 책임이 확대되었다. 해사사건에 있어서 계약상 워런티나 묵시적인 워런티를 위반한 경우, 사건의 장소나 전통적인 해사 관련성에 의하여 해사재판관할권이 적용되어 진다. 즉 물품의 하자와 관련된 사건인 경우, 계약법상 워런티가 첫째 유형으로 적용되고, 불법행위에 의한 것은 두 번째 유형으로 적용된다. 그러므로 본 논문에서는 먼저 선박건조계약상 건조자의 계약책임에 대하여 영국법을 중심으로 고찰하고 다음으로 영국, 미국, 독일, 그리고 한국의 제조물책임법을 비교하여 결론적으로 각국들의 제조물책임에 대한 한국 조선소들의 대응전략을 제시함을 본 논문의 목적으로 한다

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• 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.

• 한국건설관리학회논문집
• /
• 제23권2호
• /
• pp.65-75
• /
• 2022

2020년 6월 11일 대법원은 대상 사건에 대해 계약특수조건에서 정한 하자보수 보증기간이 지났다고 하더라도 원고가 피고에게 불완전이행으로 인한 채무불이행책임을 주장할 수 있다는 원심의 판단을 정당하다고 판결하였다. 그러나 우리나라 민법학에서 하자담보책임에 대한 제척기간과 채무불이행책임에 대한 소멸시효의 경합이 인정되고, 제척기간과 소멸시효는 법리상 각각의 목적을 가지고 있으므로, 이 둘은 상호 연관 관계에 있음을 전제로 조화롭게 중용하여 판단되어야 한다. 대상 판결이 일반화될 경우 도급계약에서의 하자담보책임에 관한 약정은 더이상 존재할 이유가 없다. 본 연구는 하자담보책임과 채무불이행책임에 대한 일반론 및 선행판례 연구를 통해 대상 판결을 고찰하고, 대상 판결이 일반화될 경우 발생 가능한 문제점 도출하였다. 또한 현실적인 모델을 바탕으로 실무적 개선방안으로 도급계약 약정상 하자담보책임기간의 현실화하고 그 성격의 규정을 명문화할 것을 제시하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제42권
• /
• 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.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제12권3호
• /
• 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.

• 한국산업정보학회논문지
• /
• 제5권4호
• /
• 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.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제58권
• /
• 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.

• 한국철도학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국철도학회 2008년도 춘계학술대회 논문집
• /
• pp.1479-1485
• /
• 2008

본 논문은 철도차량분야에 적용할 소프트웨어 Escrow의 상세 적용 절차에 대하여 논의하고자 한다. 철도차량 발주자는 차량의 소프트웨어 포함 장치에 대한 하자보증 기간(warranty period) 이후의 소프트웨어 변경 및 유지보수성 확보를 위하여 소스코드, 핵심적인 기술 원천정보 등을 요구하고 있다. 한편, 소프트웨어 개발 업체는 소스코드 등이 업체의 지적 재산권에 해당하는 사안이기 때문에 시행청의 요구사항을 만족하기 어려운 실정이다. 그러므로, 주 계약자인 철도차량 제작자는 소프트웨어 개발자와 사용자 간의 다른 입장을 조율하기 위하여, 소프트웨어 Escrow 서비스 제도를 도입해야 할 필요성이 있다. 소프트웨어 Escrow는 소프트웨어 Escrow 패키지(소프트웨어 소스코드, 소프트웨어 개발 툴, 빌드 프로세스, 독점권을 가진 정보, 저작권 등)의 거래 시, Escrow 계약 문서에 대한 서명을 통한 Escrow 계약 조건을 상호 합의한 후 신뢰성 있는 제3의 기관에 관련 기술 자료 등을 예치해 두는 양자 간 상생협력을 위한 제도이다. 본 논문에서는 다음의 Escrow 진행 절차에 대한 상세 내역을 연구하고, 향후 프로젝트 적용 방안을 제안하고자 한다.