• 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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.43 no.4
• /
• pp.51-68
• /
• 2018

This study examined the scope of damages resulting from types of loss under the CISG and the PICC(2016). The CISG and PICC stipulate the rights of aggrieved parties to recover losses under the full compensation principle, but the PICC features more specific provisions regarding damages compared to the CISG. Therefore the PICC might provide practical insight resolving problems concerning damages under the CISG. There are direct and incidental losses, consequential losses, lost profit, and loss of chance that can be claimed by aggrieved parties under the CISG or the PICC but the scope of claimable losses differs by cases. For example, even though there are no specific clauses in the CISG or the PICC, some losses might include based on the requisite of damage under CISG or PICC. Therefore, it is important to know standards in which losses are covered by these agreements. In conclusion, related parties who engage in international trade should understand the requisite and limitation of damages, and need to clearly define specific losses that might not be governed under the CISG or the PICC.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.37-57
• /
• 2017

An arbitrator in Pakistan is required to file an arbitral award in a civil court of competent jurisdiction for its recognition and enforcement if an arbitral award is domestic or before the concerned High Court if the arbitral award is international. The court of law is required to issue a decree upon submitted arbitral award if an interested party do not apply for modification or remission of an arbitral award and do not challenge it for setting it aside or for revocation of its recognition and enforcement within a prescribed time limit. The challenging process of an arbitral award can be started by the aggrieved party of an arbitration agreement at the seat of arbitration or at the place where recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award is sought. The aggrieved party to an arbitration agreement is required to challenge an arbitral award within a prescribed time limit if contracting parties have not excluded the right to challenge an arbitral award. Limitation for challenging an arbitral award in Pakistan is 30 days under article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, starting from the date of service of notice of filling of an arbitral award before the court of law. Generally, 90 days are given for an appeal against decision of the civil court of law under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, it is therefore highly recommended that challenging time of an arbitral award should be increased from 30 to 90 days.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.4
• /
• pp.77-95
• /
• 2015

CISG provides a uniform framework for contracts of sale of goods between parties whose places of business are in different States. In 2004 South Korea became the 63th State around world to adopt CISG. Starting next year CISG goes into effect as the law that governs the contracts for international sale of goods, in respect of which CISG displaces the existing domestic civil and commercial codes of Korea. By its provision Article 1(a), CISG applies directly between Contracting States without reference to private international law. As South Korea's biggest trade partners including China, the U.S. and Japan are also parties to CISG, the number of such direct applications continuously increases. Now it is estimated, though roughly, that CISG governs about two-thirds of Korea's import and export trade of goods. The private survey of the author shows that up to now in South Korea there are 39 court cases decided by the first instance courts, 29 cases by the appellate court and six cases by the Supreme Court of South Korea. In nearly all these cases, CISG applied directly. Furthermore, currently CISG is, in several respects, influencing upon the revision of Korean civil code which is designed to modernize it: The revised draft published in 2013 adopts the rules on the revocation of offers provided in articles 15 and 16, the rule on the termination of offers provided in article 17 and the rule on the time that an acceptance takes its effect provided in article 18 of CISG. More importantly, in accordance with the rules taken by CISG, the revision draft no longer requires the existence of fault or negligence on behalf of the breaching party in order for the aggrieved party to void the contract, and the revised draft denies the right of avoidance for trivial, not fundamental, breaches of contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.25-62
• /
• 2014

Avoidance refers to the process of terminating a contract because of a non-performance. It implies the right of the aggrieved party to refuse to accept further performance by the other side and to refuse to perform one's own counter-obligations, on a permanent basis. The 1980 U.N. Convention on the International Sale of Goods, hereinafter 'CISG', regulates in Arts. 81-84 the effects of avoidance. The primary effect is that prescribed in Art. 81.1 CISG: both parties are released from their obligations under the contract, subject to any damages which may be due. As seen, the CISG deals with the legal consequences of avoidance, including restitutionary claims. However, a closer look to CISG provisions on restitution reveals that certain matters are left open. For instance, the CISG leaves open questions such as the costs, place and time where restitution is to be made. In this particular, the Convention remains silent as to the consequences of a delayed or refused restitution or the buyer's liability when the goods are damaged or destroyed after the avoidance. In light of the above, the present article attempts to determine the extent to which the modes of restitution are regulated in the CISG and how possible gaps are to be filled.

• 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.