• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.291-319
• /
• 2004

The seller may take a warranty with respect to the goods. If they are not as warranted, they may be held liable for the breach of warranty. Even when they has not made a warranty, the law will in some instances hold them responsible as though they had made a warranty. An express warranty is a part the basis for the sale. That is, the buyer has purchased the goods on the reasonable assumption that they were as stated by the seller. When the buyer intends to use the goods for a particular or usual purpose, as contrasted with the ordinary use for which they are customarily sold, the seller makes an implied warranty that the goods will be fit for the purpose when the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, and when the seller at the time of contracting knows or has reason to know the buyer's particular purpose and his reliance on the seller's judgment. A merchant seller who makes a sale of goods in which he customarily deals makes an implied warranty of merchantability. The Uniform Commercial Code expressly abolishes the requirement a privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be brought against the seller by members of the buyer's family, his household, and his guests, with respect to personal injury sustained by them. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement. At common law the rule was that only the parties to a transaction had my rights relating to it. Accordingly, the buyer could sue his immediate seller for breach of warranties. The rule was stated in the terms that there could be no suit for breach of warranty unless there was a privies of contract. The code expressly abolishes the requirement of privies to a limited extent by permitting a suit for breach of warranty to be bought against the seller by members of the buyer. Apart from the express provision made by the Code, there is a conflict of authority as to whether privies of contract is required in other cases, with the trend being toward the abolition of that requirement.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.119-132
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This study seeks to deepen our understanding of abusive supervision and its negative consequences on subordinates. Specifically, it examines the underlying psychological mechanism between abusive supervision and subordinates' work engagement, in particular with its focus on the mediational role of psychological contract breach. Design/methodology/approach - Following the two rounds of pilot interviews, this study collected and analyzed 182 survey data from one construction company and one hospital - the sectors in which abusive supervision is known to be frequent, with one-month interval to avoid common methods variances. Findings - We have two key findings. First, abusive supervision is negatively related to subordinates' work engagement. Second, the psychological contract violation mediates the relationship between abusive supervision and subordinates' work engagement. Research implications or Originality - This study enriches extant research on abusive supervision by deepening our understanding of the underlying mechanism in which abusive supervision causes negative outcomes. On a practical note, companies need further efforts to address abusive supervision, for example, by introducing sophisticated HR practices, including accessible grievance procedures and more serious disciplinary actions, and/or by offering leadership educations to supervisors.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.167-190
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study is to find out some countermeasure to Korean companies entered Chinese market through analyzing an arbitration case resolved by CIETAC applied of Chinese Commission Agency Law and CISG. China create legal relationship between the principal and the third party under Chinese Consignment Contract Law. Korean companies so make sure whether this Contract is included when they conclude international commercial contract. If yes, they have to prove their recognition for the relationship between the principal and the commission agent when needed. If the parties agreed an additional period of time of delivery and the seller do not deliver the goods within this period, this breach might be regarded as fundamental nature and the buyer could declare the contract avoided. In addition, late delivery might also be regarded as fundamental breach when market price is fluctuated. It is understandable that attorney's fees is recoverable one, but it is not understandable that arbitrator's extra expenses such as travel and accommodation expenses is not recoverable with the reason that arbitrator comes outside of the country.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.217-260
• /
• 2013

In connection to the civil liability of the medical malpractice, plaintiff and courts are solving the medical disputes with theory of the liability based on tort law. because contract law does not enact the right of claim of solatium and a plaintiff's lawyer and courts hesitate to use contract law. Medical treatment of doctor is main debt in medical contract and its in-complete performance gives rise to the violations of human's life, body and health. Consequently a breach of medical contract leads to violations of person-al rights. These violations spring from liability of contract as well as tort and damages from them are recognized based on medical contract law. A duty of explanation of doctor is a independent and appendant debt to the treatment debt. However its breach provokes violations of human's life, body and health as well as a right self-determination. Therefore consolation money claim should be recognized. In case of the violation of patient's life, body and health, patient's family al-so can demand consolation money due to the violation of their's own mental pain. However in case of the violation of only patient's self-determination without informed concent, they can not demand it by reason of the violation of patient's self-determination. But by reason of the violation of patient's life, body and health that were recognized by proximate causal relation between violation of duty of explanation and abd execution, they can do.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.163-186
• /
• 2009

On April 11, 1980, the "United Nations on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" ("CISG") was prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and approved by a diplomatic conference in Vienna providing uniform law for international sales of goods. It took effect as of March 1, 2005, in Korea. It is set forth on the seller's remedies for breach by the buyer Section III (Art. 61 - 65) under the CISG. In this study, the focus is only on the seller's notice fixing additional final period for performance (Art. 63) and the right to avoid the contract (Art. 64), with examination on some relevant foreign arbitral awards rendered by the ICC and the CIETAC together. Article 63 provides that the seller may fix an additional period of time for reasonable length for performance by the buyer of his obligation. It was found from the above arbitral awards that the concept of 'reasonable length' should be decided on a case-by-case basis, given the specific circumstances in the case [Art. 63(1)]. It is provided that unless the seller has received a notice that he will not perform within the period so fixed, the seller may not, during that period, resort to any remedy for breach of contract in accordance with Article 63(2). Article 64(1) provides the means and grounds for avoidance of the contract, which can be avoided 1) when the breach of the buyer amounts to a fundamental breach of contract, or 2) when the additional period of time is fixed by the seller, unless the buyer declares that he will not perform so within the period of fixed time. As we examined in the above arbitral awards, it was held that the contract is avoided when the seller sends the final notice stating that he will avoid the contract, after the expiration of the additional period of time fixed by the seller in the ICC award. On the contrary, it was held that the contract should be deemed to be avoided exactly when the expiration of additional period noted in the avoidance notice is elapsed in the CIETAC award. Article 64(2) sets time limits for avoidance.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.107-126
• /
• 2016

The parties in International Sale of Goods including Korean Firms Should note ; The buyer must pay the price for the goods and take delivery of them as required by the contract and CISG. The obligations mentioned in Article 53 are primary obligations which are to be fulfilled in the normal performance of the contract. The buyer has to take delivery at the respective place within a reasonable period after this communication since he cannot be required to take delivery immediately. Refusing to take delivery in case of delay not constituting a ground for avoiding the contract makes no sense, since this would lead to even later delivery. The buyer's obligation to pay the price includes taking such steps and complying with such formalities as may be required under the contract or any laws and regulations to enable payment to be made. International sales contracts frequently prescribe that the buyer has to act in advance, that is before the seller starts the process of delivery. Such acts may be either advance payments or the procurement of securities for payment as letters of credit guarantees. On the other hand, The seller deliver the goods hand over any documents relating to them and transfer the property in the goods, as required by the contract and CISG. The seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Except where the parties have agreed otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be used are fit for any particular purpose expressly or impliedly made known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the seller's skill and judgement. The buyer may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the seller to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract. The seller may declare the contract avoided if the failure by the buyer to perform any of his obligations under the contract or CISG amounts to a fundamental breach of contract.