The Pennzoil case and the SME case illustrate the difficulties which originate from inadequate drafting of letters of intent. In both cases the judges had to face the crucial question as to whether or not a given letter of intent had a binding nature; they had in other words to decide whether the wills expressed in such letters still belonged to the pre-contractual stage, or whether their incorporation into a pre-contractual document meant that negotiations were over and binding obligations had already arisen for the parties. In other words, some problems may occur when a party has documented a stage in the negotiations by letters of intent. The letters may well explicitly spell out if, and to what extent, the parties should be bound by what they have already agreed or to carry on negotiations in order to reach the final contract. But if the letters are silent, some problems would arise. Contracting parties are, therefore, well advised to spell out if, and to what extent, they should be bound by such preliminary agreements. Here again, it might be prudent to explicitly set forth that the parties should not be bound until there is a final written contract signed by authorized representatives of the parties but that they shall abstain from such measures which may defeat their stated objective to reach final agreement, e.g. by diminishing the value of performance under the contemplated contract.

This article primarily concerns the various aspects of the rules to control express terms particularly in standard form which seek to absolve either wholly or in part from the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. It describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms. In this analysis, it places the following questions; first, whether each jurisdiction treats the seller's liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity as mandatory rules, second, if it does, to what extent it is treated so and third, if not, in what way it controls the seller's attempt to exclude or restrict his liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity. In addition, it attempts to compare the rules under English law with those under Korean law and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. In an attempt to evaluate them, it asks the question of whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. The evaluation is based upon the idea that the problems of fairness associated with the use of standard terms occur where the customer is unfairly taken by surprise due to his ignorance of the terms, or where even if he knows of the substance of the terms and objects to it, he is met with a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

The Arbitration Act of Korea was promulgated in 1966. Since the promulgation of Arbitration Act of Korea, consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2001 and 2002. Among the various set of amendments, those of 1999 were designed to accommodate the UNCITRAL Model Law on international Commercial Arbitration of 1985. Korea has acceded to special international conventions on dispute settlement such as the New York Convention of 1958 and the Washington Convention of 1965. The Korean Commercial Arbitration Board(KCAB) administers the arbitration proceedings in accordance with its Arbitration Rules approved by the Korean Supreme Court. Since the establishment of the first Arbitration Rules in 1966. consecutive amendments took place in 1973, 1981, 1989, 1993, 1996, 2000 and 2004. The KCAB plans to enact the International Arbitration Rules, which will be available to disputing parties in addition to the KCAB Arbitration Rules. In 2005, arbitration applications received at KCAB recorded a historic high at 213 cases, an increase of 22% from 175 cases in 2000. But in 2005, the total amount involved in the arbitration cases decreases to US$ 129 million, a decline of 63% from US$ 346 million in 2000. The KCAB should take the following measures for activating the commercial arbitration system: the globalization of KCAB, the advertisement of arbitration system, the security of qualified arbitrators, and the enhancement of the secretariat service. In conclusion, the KCAB should make efforts for the development of the arbitration system and for the upgrade of customer satisfaction. Moreover the KCAB should make further efforts to grow into a global arbitration institution as well as strengthening relations with international arbitration institutions.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the composition of the arbitration costs in ICC Rule of Arbitration and to examine how each item of the costs is determined. Furthermore this author tired to find the principles or criteria deciding which of the party should bear them or in what proportion they shall be home by the parties in Article 31. Thus this author could find three common approaches. First, all of the costs are home by the losing party, or Second, all of the costs are allocated in proportion to the result of award in each case. Third, all of the costs determined by the Court as shared equally by the parties and both parties bear their own costs. But, both parties may include their intention in accordance with the principle of party autonomy. For example if the parties with to ensure that the arbitration costs be shared equally and that the arbitrator make no allocation of costs and fees, the following sentence could be added to the arbitration clause. "All costs and expenses of the arbitrators (and the arbitral institution) shall be home by the parties equally; each party shall bear the costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, of its own counsel, experts, witnesses and preparation and presentation of its case."

The objective of this study is to find out the below mentioned answers including main determinants of FDI in India by Korean firms. Which factors can attract Korean companies to invest in India ? What will be the lessons for Korean companies which are willing to invest in India, in the near future ? What will be the recommendations for Indian governments to attract more and more Korean firms ? In summary, it is clear that Indian market potentials(or attractiveness) and production factors as locational factors are found to be the most important determinants of FDI in India.