• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제75권
• /
• pp.49-69
• /
• 2017

Making a international contract of sale is not a simple work. International Trade parties(seller and buyer) may choose trade terms such as FOB or CIF to simplify their contracts and avoid misunderstanding of international commercial practice. Incoterms is the international rules for the interpretation of the trade terms, and firstly regulated by the ICC in 1936. The latest version is Incoterms 2010. Incoterms 2010 governs certain responsibilities between the seller and the buyer under the international contract of sale. Moreover, Incoterms 2010 provides the standard of division of costs relating to contract of carriage. But we should note that Incoterms 2010 is not the part of contract of carriage. The writer points out that there is no consistence principle in distributing the special costs under the contract of carriage like unloading cost from the transport vehicle. To avoid the dispute between the parties, it is more safe for international traders to fully and completely understand on the customs and practice of carriage of goods. Incoterms 2010 provides more detailed method of delivery of goods than CISG and RAFTD. Concerning the method of delivery of goods, CISG and RAFTD simply provide that the seller shall place the goods at the discharge of buyers. The writer suggests the basic principles to allocate the special costs of delivery of goods according to the trade terms under Incoterms 2010.

• 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.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제48권3호
• /
• pp.23-41
• /
• 2023

무역계약의 이행기일은 매도인의 물품인도 기일과 매수인의 대금지급 기일이다. 신용장거래에서 무역계약의 이행기일은 신용장에서 명시된 선적기일과 서류매입기일로 본다. 매도인은 매수인으로부터 신용장을 받고나서 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하여야 하며 이 기간이 경과하면 매도인은 신용장을 거절할 수 없다. 그러나 매수인의 귀책 사유로 인하여 5 은행영업일 이내에 신용장의 승낙 여부를 결정하지 못하는 경우에는 신용장에 명시된 선적기일까지 연장된다. 매도인이 신용장 변경을 요청한 경우에 매수인은 반드시 이를 수락하여 매도인이 원하는 신용장을 변경하여 매도인에게 개설하여야 한다. 매수인이 매도인의 신용장 변경 요청을 거절하면 A사는 B사가 요청한 대로 신용장 내용을 변경하여 다시 개설할 의무가 있고 A사가 단순히 신용장의 변경을 지체한 것이 아니라 B사의 신용장 요청을 거절한 경우에는 B사가 견적서에 합의하여 기대할 수 있는 바를 실질적으로 박탈하는 것으로 국제물품매매계약에 관한 국제연합협약 제25조가 규정한 본질적인 계약위반에 해당되어 B사는 무역계약을 해제할 수 있고 A사에게 손해배상을 청구할 수 있다. A사의 무역계약 위반으로 인한 손해배상액은 이익의 상실을 포함하여 그 위반의 결과 B사가 입은 손실과 동등한 금액으로 하여야 한다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제62권
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2) which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제19권
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2003

The CISG approach was intended to make the remedial system clear, but produced ambiguity, and complexity. The CISG does not differentiate between main, auxiliary and participatory obligations. There is no distinction between breaches of main or breaches of auxiliary obligations, rather, a distinction is made between fundamental and other breaches of contract. Articles 25 gives the definition of fundamental breach of contract. This concept is the essential of avoidance and remedial system in the CISG. This concept, however, is ambiguous. The fact that the fundamentality of a breach of contract in many cases is the condition for an avoidance of contract, is expression of the trend of the CISG to preserve contracts, which I consider as essential in international trade. The elements which define a substantial detriment are extremely complex. It will become obvious that the relevant detriment is not a static element, but in many instances occurs only when the breach of contract continues. It should be added that it is the circumstances of each individual case which are relevant. It is to be stressed that a fundamental breach of contract must constitute also a non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제50권
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this paper is to examine the use of LD Clause against the seller's breach of contract in connection with delivering the goods in the international sales contract, and international guarantee system using standby L/C or demand guarantee. For this purpose, the author, first, considered the outline of the buyer's remedies in cases that the seller had not performed his obligations in contract and the difficulties in the buyer's remedies. As alternatives for overcoming the difficulties, this author recommended the LD Clauses (Liquidated Damage Clauses) based on ICC Model International Sales Contract, and explained each Model Clause. To enhance the feasibility of LD Clause, this author suggested the guarantee system, like the standby L/C or demand guarantee. But these guarantee systems have several limitations in practical use. Thus, these guarantee systems would greatly contribute to Korean exportation in the future. The reason is that the Korean export structure would be more complex and the period of sales contract would be longer and longer, which result to in long-terms supply contracts. These changes would require the guarantee much urgently.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.123-144
• /
• 2012

Seller shall deliver the goods with a perfect condition of packing or container in international trade. Unless otherwise seller shall warranty that the goods arrive at destination with a safe and economic value. Buyer may ask packing is to be made in specific condition or refuse to accept when the packing is not made in accordance with trade customs between among merchants. Especially packing is to be considered under the local law and process. Sometimes tax will be added to specific condition of packing for example glasses, metal sheet or others. Warning signs shall be included as form of both words and diagrams, and be in form of ensuring understanding in the local market. Wide range of warning signs can be used for communications and understanding of packing. Packing of a product can usefully symbolize a range of product information, or any relevant warnings, and give an opportunity for displaying messages of promoting the company and the goods. The seller may choose the best method to maintain its value but find a way to reduce packing cost, size for convenience during delivery, design, and local customs. There are many things to be considered for packing to seller. The purpose of packing is to protect the goods itself and to maintain its economic value during storage, delivery, transshipment, and distribution to end users.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제37권
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2008

This study primarily concerns the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(1980) in comparison with the Draft Principles of European Sales Law. It describes and analyzes the provisions of the CISG as to the seller's duty, focusing on main controversial issues among scholars in their application. It also attempts to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the Draft PESL and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intends to insert the CISG or the Draft PESL in their contract as a governing law. The comparative study particularly focuses on the following aspects; first, requirements for conformity with the contract which deals with the concept of conformity with the contract, contractual requirements agreed between contractual parties, and implied requirements otherwise not agreed between contractual parties, second, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract, third, exclusions of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제60권
• /
• pp.3-26
• /
• 2013

Seller's obligation on the Delivery of Goods and Handing over the Documents are key elements in Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) has been entered into force on 1 January 1988 to create international certainty and uniformity in the law and to govern issues that arise in an international sale of goods transaction. The Incoterms were first published by the ICC in 1936 and were most recently revised in 2010. Incoterms 2010 are entering into force on 1 January 2011. The Incoterms focus on the seller's delivery obligations and reflect the principle that the risk of loss or damage to the goods passes from the seller to the buyer when the seller has fulfilled its obligations to deliver the goods. This study highlights basic rules covering seller's obligation of delivery of goods and handing over the documents under the Incoterms 2010 and the United Nations Convention and Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. In the second chapter, this study will provide analyses and compare these two legal systems in relation to the basic rules governing delivery of goods and passing of risks in contract of sale. This chapter evaluates the meaning of Article 31 and Article 67(1) and FOB, CFR, CIF & FCA, CPT, CIP terms of Incoterms 2010. Chapter Three will focus on handing over the documents. Article 30 CISG imposes the seller's primary obligations to deliver the goods and to hand over documents relating to them. Article 34 CISG supplements the seller's obligation in relation to documents by providing that the seller must hand over documents relating to the goods. In contrast, Article 58(1) CISG imposes on the buyer the obligation to pay only when it has received the goods or documents controlling their disposition. I reviewed only some of the documents relating to the goods are documents controlling their disposition. This chapter considers the meaning of the phrase "documents that control the disposition of the goods and do not control disposition of the goods." Finally, the fourth chapter will assess the meaning of rules of CISG and Incoterms 2010.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제14권3호
• /
• pp.481-511
• /
• 2012

국제상업회의소에 의하여 2010년에 개정되어 2011년 1월 1일부터 시행된 Incoterms 2010의 모든 규칙의 A6조와 B6조에 각각 규정되어 있는 매도인과 매수인 간의 비용의 분배를 다루고 있는 비용분배조항이 종전의 Incoterms 2000의 비용분배조항과 비교하여 볼 때 어떻게 개정되었으며, 개정된 Incoterms 2010의 비용분배조항의 내용을 구체적으로 살펴보고 비용분배조항에서 해석상의 문제점에 대한 유의사항을 살펴보았다. 즉, Incoterms 2010의 모든 규칙의 비용분배조항의 해석에 따른 문제점으로서, 통상적인 운송계약의 조건에 따른 비용분배의 문제점, 적재비용과 양륙비용지급의 문제점, 매수인의 의무불이행에 따른 추가비용지급의 문제점 및 이에 대한 실무적용상의 유의점을 제시하였다.