THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW (무역상무연구)

The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce and Law (한국무역상무학회)
권호 표지

A Comparative Legal Study on the Damages in the International Sale Laws

국제물품매매에서 손해배상청구권에 관한 비교법적 고찰

  • Received : 2018.01.29
  • Accepted : 2018.02.21
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study compares the SGA and CISG to find out the difference of the criteria for calculating damages. and it intends to give some important points in trade practice. The damages is intended to compensate the victim for the breach of contract but there are differences between SGA and CISG as follow. First, the SGA and CISG have the same purpose of claiming damages. Both laws and regulations are subject to a full indemnification to compensate for the breach of the contract by the amount equivalent to the loss suffered by the victim. Second, in the general principle related to the calculation of damages, both law enforcement officials are required to be able to predict damages caused by breach of contract. In the case of SGA, however, a foreseeability test or remoteness of damages is required for the relationship between the contract violation and the loss. In other words, it can be said that the causal relation between the contract violation and the damage is strictly applied rather than the CISG. Finally, both laws and regulations of SGA and CISG have a big difference in criteria for calculating damages. In the CISG, after the contract is canceled, it is classified according to the existence of the alternative transaction and the damage amount is calculated based on the contract price. On the other hand, the SGA estimates the loss based on the market price at the delivery of the goods, reflecting the change in the market price instead of the contract price of the goods.

Keywords

References

  1. 강병창, 국제통일매매법, 형설출판사, 2000.
  2. 곽윤직, 채권총론, 박영사, 2006.
  3. 민주희, "SGA에서 권리부적합에 대한 매수인의 구제권에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구 제66권, 한국무역상무학회, 2015.
  4. 서건환, 국제거래계약실무, 한국금융경제연구소, 1998.
  5. 서희원, 영미법강의, 박영사, 2002.
  6. 석광현, 국제물품매매계약의 법리, 박영사, 2010.
  7. 신창섭, "국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약에서 결과적 손해에 관한 연구", 고려법학 제57호, 고려대학교 법학연구원, 2010.
  8. 양창수.김재형, 계약법, 박영사, 2015.
  9. 오세창, "국제물품매매계약하의 손해배상금 산정에 관한 연구", 무역상무연구 제17권, 한국무역상무학회, 2002.
  10. 오원석, UN통일매매법, 제2판, 삼영사, 2004.
  11. 윤광운.박정기.최영봉.조현숙, 영국물품매매법, 탑북스, 2011.
  12. 이호정, 영국계약법, 경문사, 2003.
  13. 황지현.최영주, "국제물품매매에서 손해배상과 관련한 실무상 유의점에 관한 연구 - CISG(1980)와 PICC(2004)를 중심으로", 한국무역상무연구 제55권, 한국무역상무학회, 2012.
  14. Andrew Burrows, "Legislative Reform of Remedies for Breach of Contract: The English Perspective", EDINBURGH Law. Review 155, 1997.
  15. Chen-Wishart, Mindy, Contract law, Oxford University Press, 2012.
  16. Ewan McKendrick, "The Common Law at Work: The Saga of Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown Ltd.", Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 3(2), 2003.
  17. Franco Ferrari, "Homeward Trend and Lex Forism Despite Uniform Sales Law", 13 Vindobona J. Int'l. L. & Arb. 15, 2009.
  18. Goode, Roy, Herbert Kronke, and Ewan McKendrick, Transnational commercial law: text, cases, and materials, Oxford University Press, 2015.
  19. Harris, Donald, David Campbell, and Roger Halson, Remedies in Contract and Tort, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  20. Reza Beheshti, "Comparative and Normative Analysis of Damages Under the SGA and the CESL", St. Thomas Law Review 26, 2013.
  21. Treitel, Guenter H, Remedies for Breach of Contract : A Comparative Account, Oxford University Press on Demand, 1988.