• Proceedings of the Korea Port Economic Association Conference
• /
• 2003.07a
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, 1 want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Fifthly, the insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.241-265
• /
• 2003

The purpose of this paper is to examine the customs clearance impediment and trade parties breaches of international sales contract by the impediment. Customs clearance impediment arises when (a)clearance is not permitted, (b) importation goods are confiscated, (c)clearance delay without expectation, and (d) additional excessive trade cost caused in the process of clearance. This kind of clearance impediment may cause the breach of international sales contract. And it depends on its contents of contract and causal sequence i.e. cause and effect respectively in determining who is liable for it. If one party exemptions by Article 79 CISG, next three elements must be proved. (a)The failure was due to an impediment beyond his control; (b)the impediment was reasonably unforeseeable at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and (c)the impediment was reasonably impossible to overcome. But the customs clearance impediment is not easy to prove these three elements, the party who is responsible the customs clearance may not be exemptions by Article 79 CISG. And, according to review, it is concluded that the buyer, rather than seller, is liable for the damage which is caused in the process of clearance. It is also confirmed that the seller is sometimes liable for depending on clauses of contracts i.e. quality conditions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.55-86
• /
• 2014

Korea has become a member of the United Nations Convention on Contract of the International Sales of Goods (the 'CISG') effective since March 1, 2005. As, therefore, the governing law of the general terms and conditions (the 'GTC') in the Government Foreign Procurement Contract (the 'Contract') is mandatorily fixed to the Korean Law, the CISG, as an International Convention, now having an equivalent or even higher status to the Korean Law, unless expressly excluded, will be priorly applied to the Contract where a transaction occurs between its members. In this regard, this study focuses on how to find the way for the CISG to be a governing law of the GTC in order to eliminate legal uncertainties and lacks of foreseeability prevailed in the international trade. For that purpose, the legal aspects of GTC, and the Buyer's remedy for the Seller's breach of the Contract are analyzed in accordance with the comparative study between the CISG and the GTC including the relevant case studies. As a result of this study, the application of the CISG into the GTC is highly recommended in order to reflect into the Contract such features as fairly harmonized for the interest of both parties. Taking this opportunity, a GTC, amended from the existing one, or newly formed, within the perimeter of not conflicting with the provisions of the CISG, including but not limited to the Civil Law and Commercial Law, is required in order to evenly share each party's responsibilities and obligations where the breach or remedy of the Contract is, and, thus, which will ultimately contribute to an efficient conduct of the Contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.125-145
• /
• 2017

Where an insurer has unreasonably refused to pay a claim or paid it after unreasonably delay, the existing law in England does not provide a remedy for the insured. Accordingly, the insured is not entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result of the insurer's unreasonable delay. This legal position differs from the law in Scotland and most major common law jurisdictions. LC thought that the legal position in England is anomalous and out of step with general contractual principles. LC considered that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment of claim, and, therefore, recommended a statutory implied term in every insurance that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time and breach of that term should give rise to contractual remedies, including damages. More detailed recommendations of LC are as followings. First, it should be an implied term of every insurance contract that, where an insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay sums due within a reasonable time. Secondly, a reasonable time should always include a reasonable time for investigating and assessing a claim. Although a reasonable time will depend on all the relevant circumstances, for example, the following things may need to be taken into account, that is, (1) the type of insurance, (2) the size and complexity of the claim, (3) compliance with any relevant statutory rules or guidance, and (4) factors outside the insurer's control. Thirdly, if the insurer can show that it had reasonable grounds for disputing the claim(whether as to pay or not, or the amount payable), the insurer does not breach the obligation to pay within a reasonable time merely by failing to pay the claim while the dispute is continuing. In those circumstances, the conduct of the insurer in handling the dispute may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the obligation was breached and, if so, when. Fourthly, Normal contractual remedies for breach of contract should be available for breach of the implied term to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Finally, In non-consumer insurance contracts, the insurer should be permitted to exclude or limit its liability for breach of the obligation to pay sums due within a reasonable time, unless such breach was deliberate or reckless, and such an insurer's right to contract out will be subject to satisfying the transparency requirements.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.33-51
• /
• 2022

According to the CISG, there are no special regulations for a reasonable period of time among the obligations to notify the contractual suitability of the goods. As a result, many disputes arise in 'notification within a reasonable period' despite being the most important treaty in practice in defining the obligation to notify nonconformities according to the suitability of goods for each case. Regarding the interpretation of Article 39 of the CISG, various judgments and arbitration decisions are being made in each country for a reasonable period to notify that the goods are not suitable for the contract.There are criticisms that these various views are too harsh on the buyer in the buyer's obligation to notify.It is important to create a unified principle because courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of this Convention interpret in various ways the reasonable period of violation of the contract of goods stipulated in the Convention. Since most of the international commodity trading transactions around the world are regulated by the CISG, it is necessary to analyze and interpret cases in which this Convention is applied in court or arbitral tribunal of each country to derive a unified principle.

• 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.