• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 1999

Under the CISG, there is a unequitable factor in comparing buyer's remedy with seller's remedy. In my opinion, CISG is more unequitable remedy clause than UCC or UNIDROIT principle of International Commercial Contract(1994) between seller and buyer. First, buyer who accepted defect goods must give seller notice the facts that seller delivered defect goods in two years after accepting defect goods. The cap of two year is unreasonable in a position of aggrieved buyer. This is being provided as 'within reasonable time' in UCC and there is no such provision in UNIDROIT Principle. Second, Buyer can avoid contract when seller breached fundamentally contract or seller didn't set a additional performance period about breaching of contract. Accordingly if buyer would not set a additional performance period, although seller's breachment of contract, he could not avoid the contract. Therefore, From a viewpoint of aggrieved buyer avoidable right of contract is restrainted. Third, to compare seller's remedy with buyer's, seller have more opportunity to cure breachment of contract than buyer. Under the CISG buyer is relatively placed at disadvantage in remedy of aggrieved party. In connection with remedy of aggrieved party, 'UNIDROIT principle of international commercial contracts' instead seller and buyer of aggrieved party, so there is not unequitable factor in remedy of aggrieved parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.63-84
• /
• 2016

Article 77 of CISG requires an aggrieved party, the promisee, claiming damages to take reasonable measures to mitigate losses. The reasonable measures required hereunder are limited to those that can be expected under the circumstances having regard to the principle of good faith. When taking such measures, the aggrieved party must do so within a reasonable time under the circumstances. The expenses incurred in taking such measures are recoverable from the promisor. If the aggrieved party fails to do so, the damages recoverable from the promisor are reduced in the amount the loss that should have been mitigated. The aggrieved party's duty to mitigate damages applies to claim for damages only. That is, the violation of this duty should not be invoked against other remedies available under CISG, such as the right to claim specific performance, the right to claim for the price or the right of reduction of price. In practice, under the provision of article 77, the aggrieved party, the seller or the buyer, is often required to enter into a substitute transaction as a measure to mitigate losses and many cases involving a substitute transaction are internationally reported. Therefore this paper intends to provide a certain understanding of the aggrieved party's duty to take measures to mitigate losses based on such cases reported.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.201-225
• /
• 1999

This article is focused on the review of price reduction and measuring damages under the CISG together with the law relating to sale of goods in main countries when the goods delivered did not conform with the contract. And also reviewed on the election of remedies for the aggrieved party, that is, which one between the two remedies would provide more compensation for the non-conformity. This article can be summarized as below. 1. Price reduction has its principal significance when the buyer accepts non-conforming goods and plays important role only when the seller is not liable for the non-conformity because the same price reduction formula applies for all circumstances. Of course, the buyer must bear any further damages, such as shutdown expenses and other consequential damages. 2. If the seller is liable for the damages and the price level rises, the buyer normally will claim damages since this approach is much more favorable result than price reduction. 3. In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers no consequential damages, if the price level falls, price reduction would provide more compensation for the non-conformity than would damages and if there is no change in the market level, the allowance for defects in the goods will be normally the same under the price reduction and damages. By the way, In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers consequential damages, it is desired that the buyer firstly elect the price reduction and later seeks to claim for consequential losses when the price level falls and unchanged.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.231-251
• /
• 2012

The remedies available to a seller that has suffered a breach of contract by the buyer are addressed in Section III of Chapter III of Part III. The first provision in the section, 61, catalogues those remedies and authorizes an aggrieved seller to resort to them. The remaining provisions of the section address particular remedies or prerequisites to remedies. The subject matter of the current section remedies for breach of contract by the buyer obviously parallels that of Section III of Chapter II of Part III remedies for breach of contract by the seller. Many individual provisions within these sections form matched pairs. Thus 61, which catalogs the seller's remedies, which catalogs the buyer's remedies. Other provisions in the current section that have analogues in the section on buyer's remedies include 62, seller's right to require buyer's performance 63, seller's right to fix an additional period for buyer to perform and 64, seller right to avoid the contract. As was the case with the provisions on buyers' remedies, the articles governing sellers' remedies operate in conjunction with a variety of provisions outside the current section. Thus the seller's right to require performance by the buyer is subject to the rule in 28 relieving a court from the obligation to order specific performance in circumstances in which it would not do so under its own law. The authorization in 61 for a seller to claim damages for a buyer's breach operates in connection with 74-76, which specify how damages are to be measured. 49, stating when an aggrieved seller can avoid the contract, is part of a network of provisions that address avoidance, including the definition of fundamental breach, the requirement of notice of avoidance, provisions governing avoidance in certain special circumstances, measures of damages available only if the contract has been avoided and the provisions of Section V of Part III, Chapter V on effects of avoidance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.49-74
• /
• 2012

This study primarily concerns the seller's right to require performance under the United Nations Convention on International Sale of Goods(1980) (here-in-after the CISG). By virtue of art. 62 of the CISG, the seller may require to pay the purchase price, take delivery or perform his other obligations. The right is known as a process whereby the aggrieved seller obtains as nearly as possible the actual subject-matter of his bargain, as opposed to compensation in money for failing to obtain it. The study describes and analyzes the provisions of the CISG as to the seller's right to require performance, focusing on the questions of what the seller can require the buyer to perform, and what the restrictions of his right to require performance are. It particularly deals with main controversial issues among scholars as to whether art. 28 of the CISG is applied to the seller's action for the price and so that it opens the door domestic traditions and national preconditions that prevent judges and enforcement authorities in some contracting states, and whether the seller's to require performance is subject to the duty to mitigate loss within the meaning of art. 77 of the CISG. On the basis of the analysis, the study puts forward the author's arguments criticizing various the existing scholars' views. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when it is expected that the CISG is applicable as the governing law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.95-118
• /
• 2015

This study examines the Buyer's Remedies in respect of Defects in Title under SGA. As SGA divides contractual terms into a condition and a warranty, its effects regarding a breach of a condition or a warranty are different. Where a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition, its breach may give rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated and to claim damages. Where there is a breach of a warranty in a contract of sale, the aggrieved party may have a right to claim damages. Regarding a breach of a condition under SGA s 12(1), although the buyer may have his right to terminate the contract, he may lose that right when he accept or is deemed to have accept the goods by intimating his acceptance to the seller, acting inconsistently with the ownership of the seller, or retaining the goods beyond a reasonable time without rejecting them. Furthermore, the buyer may claim the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting from seller's breach. SGA contains the principle of full compensation and so the suffered loss and the loss of profit are compensable. As to specific performance under SGA, the court has been empowered to make an order of specific performance to deliver the goods in conformity with the terms of the contract and so it is not a buyer's right. This order should be made only where the goods to be delivered are specific or ascertained goods and the court must think fit to grant the order. However, among these remedies, the buyer cannot have the right to terminate the contract where there is a breach of warranty by the seller under SGA s 12(2).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.3-29
• /
• 2009

The PECL have been drawn up by an independent body of experts from each member state of the european union under a project supported by the european commission and many other organizations. Salient features of the general provisions of the PECL, freedom of contract and pecta sunk servanda, good faith and fair dealing, most of the PECL are non-mandatory. The CISG uses the term fundamental breach in various setting. The concept of fundamental breach is a milestone in its remedial provisions. Its most important role is that it constitutes the usual precondition for the contract to be avoided(Art. 49., Art. 51., Art. 64., Art. 72., Art. 73). In addition, where the goods do not conform with the contract, a fundamental breach can give rise to a requirement to deliver substitute goods. Furthermore, a fundamental breach of contract by the seller leaves the buyer with all of his remedies intact, despite the risk having passed to him(Art. 70). Basically, PECL, PICC generally follows CISG, it was similar to all the regulation's platform though the terms and content sometimes differ. For example regarding to the non-performance and remedies, in the case of non-performance, that is the PECL/PICC term analogous to breach of contract as used in the CISG. Furthermore the PECL/PICC used fundamental non-performance refered to in PECL Art. 8:103 ; PICC Art. 7.1.1. correspond generally to the concept of fundamental breach referred to in CISG Art. 25. The main significance of the fundamental non-performance, in any systems, is to empower the aggrieved party to terminate the contract. The need for uniformity and harmony in international commercial contracts can be expected to lead to growth of international commerce subject to the CISG, PICC, and PECL. It is hoped that the present editorial remarks will provide guidance to improve understanding between the contractual party of different countries in this respect and following key-words.