• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.49-78
• /
• 2010

The seller has to deliver goods and hand over documents as required by the contract. It is very important that ownership of goods shall be transferred by the documents from the seller to the buyer. Where terms of payments is made under documentary payment such as negotiable order Bill of lading or any transport documents for symbolic delivery of goods shall be more important between the parties concerned. The buyer may withdraw or cancel the contract where the buyer accept the foul Bill of Lading and demand damages where the buyer accept the other documents which are not in accordance with requirements by the buyer. Withdraw or cancel of contract can be made where discrepancy of documents comes into fundamental breach of contract. In conclusion transport documents by the seller will be used to determine appropriation of transport document to the contract. Therefore the seller has to deliver the proper shipping documents to the buyer. Where the breach of the seller's obligations to deliver documents the buyer has the right of requiring performance, contract avoided, claiming damage to recover the contract under CISG. The significance of transport documents has been focused in this study and careful examination of documents shall be needed to prevent any dispute or differences between the parties.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2021

Due to the restriction of movement caused by the Corona epidemic and the expansion of the "big face" through human distance, the "unmanned system" based on artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things has been widely used in modern life. "Self-driving," one of the transportation systems based on artificial technology, has taken the initiative in the transportation system as the spread of Corona has begun. Self-driving technology eliminates unnecessary contact and saves time and manpower, which can significantly impact current and future transportation. Accidents may occur, however, due to the performance of self-driving technology during transportation albeit the U.S. allows ordinary people to drive automatically through experimental operations, and the product liability law will resolve the dispute. Self-driving has become popular in the U.S. after the experimental stage, and in the event of a self-driving accident, product liability should be applied to protect drivers from complicated self-driving disputes. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in ordinary cars can be resolved through arbitration through U.S. precedents and to investigate whether disputes caused by defects in autonomous cars can be arbitrated.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.3-21
• /
• 2016

The thesis examines genealogical study of various aspects to overcome lots of problems which come by when we execute SWIFTNet TSU BPO. Practical implications regarding the innovation of electronic trade infrastructure are as follows. First, the shipping documents in the SWIFTNet TSU BPO are directly sent to an importer by an exporter after the baseline is confirmed. With this process itself, therefore, the bank cannot secure the account receivable. When initiating the SWIFTNet TSU BPO deal, it is needed to set regulations on the bank's account receivable security in the contract. Second, the SWIFTNet TSU BPO should also have an institutionally unified sharing platform with security, stability and convenience. It other words, it is needed to develop services which meet e-payment paradigm and international environments through continued analysis on market changes and flow. Third, the SWIFTNet TSU is useful in terms of promptness, reduction of risk in foreign exchange payment, cost reduction. Therefore, the SWIFT should be perfectly united and linked among the banks, importer and exporter to make the SWIFTNet TSU more convenient in countries around the world. Fourth, the SWIFT should be approached from the aspect of expansion of network and creation of a new business model through analysis on these problems with a worldwide perspective. At the same time, it is necessary to build a cooperative system to share information and promote comprehensive management for efficient operation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.3-33
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems in exercising buyer's right to claim damages for the breach of contract by the seller in international sales contract and to suggest reasonable counter-measures. The main contents are as follows: First, this author analyzed the principles of the seller's liability for damages in detail and examined the methods for the calculation of damages on the basis of Arts.74~77. As these articles are found to be insufficient in practical application, this author further examined the UNIDROIT Principles(2004) to confirm whether these Principles can fill the gaps of CISG or not, which turned out their gap-filling functions. Second, this author tried to find any expected problems when the buyer resorts to the right to claim damages in case of the seller's breach of contract including the estimation of damages, the burden of proof, causation, the proof of appropriateness for avoidance, the proof of buyer's obligation to mitigate the loss and so on. The reason is that these problems may cause a lot of difficulties in real business. As result, many buyers have given up their reasonable rights to claim damages so far. Finally, from the buyer's perspective, this author would like to suggest a liquidated damage clause(LD Clause) which gives the buyer to received a specified sum in case of seller's non-performance and/or a demand guarantee(or standby L/C) which guarantees buyer to secure unconditional payment independent of the underlying contract. For these purposes, the buyer should try to insert the LD Clause and/or Guarantee Clause in the contract when the buyer and the seller negotiate the sales contract. Also there are a lot of considerations and limitations in using the LD Clause and the Guarantee Clause in their real business, mainly dependent up bargain power between the seller and the buyer, for which this author promise to examine in detail in the future.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.27-45
• /
• 2017

A new phenomenon in recent trade is the rising interest in the trade of product production and manufacturing methods themselves, unlike in the past, when the interest was focused on the trade of tangible goods. That is, technology is considered as the object of trade instead of a simple element of production as "technology itself is commercialized". The broad meaning of technology encompasses all the property of knowledge with economic value. Its narrow meaning refers to technology used to produce and manufacture goods. Technologies have features such as no forms, heterogeneity, accumulation of value and extinction of right. The trade of technology commands different styles and content from that of tangible goods due to their unique characteristics; and accordingly, has various risk factors. In other words, technology can be traded in various ways according to commercial objectives including licensing, technical partnership, and joint investment in addition to general trading. The specific forms of technology transfer strategies depend on the purposes and situations between corporations. In case of technical trade with any form, the parties should be cautious about the following practical aspects: First, the contract should clearly define the scope and transfer method of technology. It is a very important matter how the provider of technology will provide the user of technology with abstract technology with no substantiality. Second, a monopoly on technology recognized as intellectual property rights is granted to their inventors for some periods of time, but anyone can have access to that technology after the term of existence. Thus, it is important to check the terms of existence of a patent as well as the terms of contract. Third, the user of technology should fulfill his confidentiality obligation to prevent the technology of the provider from being leaked to a third party unjustly. Fourth, the provider of technology should make a contribution to the successful implementation of the technology by the user as well as provide the licensed technology. Finally, a model contract is recommended to minimizing the legal hiatus of complex technology transfer trade when concluding a contract.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.93-123
• /
• 2005

As the international commercial transaction has drastically grown up with the mainland China, commercial disputes that are required to settle through ADR have tremendously increased during the last decade. Since China has not been fully exposed to the Free World for a long period of time, there would have been a great amount of misunderstanding about their competency and integrity to deal with internationally oriented commercial transactions with a view to internationally acceptable manner. This arbitration case was related to the contract in dispute of C&A Inc. as the importer v. China XX Importation Co. as the exporter for the sale of Silicon Metal. But after the contract were formed, exporter(respondent) declined to deliver the goods under the contracts because the market price of Silicon Metal increased according to the argument of the importer(claimant). Importer had to purchase alternative goods from other companies to substitute for the goods subject to the contracts in dispute. Importer purchased silicon metal of the same quality as under the contracts from two other Chinese companies as the necessary measure to mitigate the loss, paying prices higher than the contract price. Since exporter had breached the contracts, importer's loss should be compensated by the exporter as the Arbitration Tribunal decided for supporting importer's claim of loss for the substitute goods. This study is aiming at analyzing the rationale of the arbitral awards made by the Shanghai Commission in terms of (l)Place of Arbitration, (2)Applicable Law, (3)Validity of the Contracts, (4)Doctrine of Frustration, (5)Responsibility for the Mitigation of Damage by the Importer.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.58
• /
• pp.59-98
• /
• 2013

Risk of loss is a term used in the law of contracts to determine which party should bear the burden of risk for damage occurring to goods after the sale has been completed, but before delivery has occurred. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), there are four risk of loss rules, in order of application. First, it is agreement that is the agreement of the parties controls. Second, the breaching party is liable for any uninsured loss even though breach is unrelated to the problem. Hence, if the breach is the time of delivery, and the goods show up broken, then the breaching rule applies risk of loss on the seller. Third, the delivery by common carrier other than by seller is necessary: Risk of loss shifts from seller to buyer at the time that seller completes its delivery obligations; If it is a destination contract, then risk of loss is on the seller; If it is a delivery contract, then the risk of loss is on the buyer. Fourth, if the seller is a merchant, then the risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon buyer's receipt of the goods. If the buyer never takes possession, then the seller still has the risk of loss. This paper discusses problems of risk of loss under the American law. Specifically, this paper focuses on the interpretation of UCC sections and analysis of various cases. By comparing, also, UCC and Korean law, the paper proposes some implications of risk of loss issues for Korean law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2009

This paper deals with disputes incurred from the CISG provisions in relation with the conformity of goods with a view to finding the general way of approach made by the court and arbitration tribunal in the case laws for the interpretation of CISG based on 6(six) cases thereon. Throughout this study, it has been noted that the German Supreme Court devoted most in creating the general principle of CISG interpretation in relation with national compulsory law of regulation applicable on the conformity of goods. It was New Zealand mussels case in which the German supreme court decided that the exporting country's compulsory law of regulation would be applied in determining the conformity of goods. Furthermore, German supreme court added that CISG does not place an obligation on the exporter to supply goods, which conform to all statutory or other public provisions in force in the import state unless the same provisions exist in the export State as well, or the importer informed the exporter about such provisions existing in the import state, or the exporter had knowledge of the provisions due to special circumstances. It is stipulated in CISG that the goods conform with contract if they are fit for the purpose for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used. When questions arise concerning matters governed by the CISG that are not expressly defined in the CISG, the question is to be settled in conformity with general principles on which the convention is based. Only when such a general principle cannot be found may the tribunal turn to other sources such as UNIDROIT Principles, Principles of European Contract Law and Lex Mercatoria, etc. Interpretation of CISG should be autonomous, in the sense that it should not depend on principles and concepts derived from any national legal system. Even where a CISG rule is directly inspired by domestic law, the court should not fall back on its domestic law, but interpret the rule by reference to the CISG with a view to its international character and to the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.