• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.1
• /
• pp.53-70
• /
• 2019

This study analyzed some cases of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commision (CIETAC) related to the application of the Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). As a contracting party of the CISG, China has accumulated a considerable amount of experience in applying CISG through commercial arbitrations. This study sought to understand how CISG is operated in commercial arbitration in China. By analyzing actual cases in China, Korean commercial arbitration can avoid mistakes and further improve. This study of Chinese cases will give some useful information for Korean companies. As defined by the CISG, the applicability can be divided into direct application and indirect application. When China joined the CISG, it made a reservation out of Article 1(1)(b). Korea and China are contracting parties to CISG and CISG is, therefore, directly applied. It is beneficial for Korea to understand how CIETAC is indirectly applied in China then. Some of the results of this study are as follows: First, CIETAC made a correct judgment most of the time on the direct application of CISG. However, there were mistakes in the judgment of the nationality of the parties in a few cases. The parties must clearly define applicable laws when entering into a contract. Secondly, the 2012 "CIETAC Arbitration Rules" was revised so that the "party autonomy" was introduced into Chinese commercial arbitration concerning indirect application. Therefore, the principle of autonomy of the parties was not fully recognized in the past judgments. Instead, the domestic law of China was applied in accordance with the reservation of Article 1(1)(b). Thirdly, China did not explain the application of CISG in Hong Kong, which led to ambiguity in concerned countries. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the status of CISG in Hong Kong. In addition, Korean companies should clearly define the applicable laws when dealing with Hong Kong companies.

• 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.23
• /
• pp.39-70
• /
• 2004

On the above, character of Incoterms and CISG, applicability of Incoterms to the principles of interpretation of CISG for contracts terms, and to the regulations of delivery and payment of price in connection with applicability of Incoterms to CISG are discussed. Conclusions are as follows : Although both rules is regulations which have to understand in connection with int'l trades of goods but CISG is a comprehensive substantive law in connection with a whole dealing course. On the other hand Incoterms are detailed substantive law of performance for two important sphere, that is to say, delivery and payment in the field of performance of CISG. According to both rules, letter credit is realizing processes of detailed performance for delivery and payment. As professor of Honnold's opinion, the relationship between Incoterms and CISG is peculiar and complementary. Therefore instead of considering the both from a point of pure legal views which both rules raise many problems that still a wait well consolidated and acknowledged answers, we have th consider the both with L/C system that still constitute a main payment system. Particularly ICC and Uncitral know that they are not only directly and indirectly involved in regulating process of the both sets but also can apply Incoterms to CISG on connection with the use of L/C.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.203-225
• /
• 2012

This paper investigates the difference of writing requirements between the UCC2. and the UN convention on international sales of goods (CISG). To do it, the U.S writing requirement by statute of frauds was introduced by two sources of laws including common law and UCC${\S}$2-201. Although the U.S. statute of frauds requires some contract to be written with formalities, the way the requirement is satisfied is quite flexible in terms of its formalities. The UCC is more flexible than the common law in its formalities. The CISG does not require the sales contract to be written with any format, which is totally different from the U.S statue of frauds. Such differences between the U.S laws and CISG in writing requirement were investigated in the context of conflicts of laws.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.41 no.5
• /
• pp.15-39
• /
• 2016

Over the past couple of decades, we can see the emergence of a new lex mercatoria. It consists of international conventions or treaty, model laws and international principles. And such new lex mercatoria is driven by the international institutions such as UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and ICC. The international convention and international principles in the field of international commercial transaction are considered : UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) and The UNIDROIT Principles(PICC Principles). The former is the statue law for the latter, and the latter sometimes supports the former as an interpretation and supplementation of CISG. So, the purpose of this article is to evaluate and investigate the current status of CISG and PICC Principles in terms of application and interpretation principles. The results are as follows. First, PICC are used for the interpretation and supplementation of international law such as CISG, but CISG is a law, not a rule. Second, CISG and PICC Principles are not often chosen when parties chose the law governing their contract. The parties very often chose a national law ; the number of the parties choosing CISG and PICC Principles as a governing law was very low.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.1-21
• /
• 2015

U. N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (hereinafter the 'CISG' or the 'Convention') has been in force more than 37 years. The CISG responds to the need for uniform sales law. First of all, the biggest barrier against the uniformity in sales law is so-called "homeward trend". Professor Honnold, who served as secretary of UNCITRAL during the time in which the CISG was developed, pointed out the danger of "homeward trend" like this in his Article. "One threat to international uniformity in interpretation is a natural tendency to read the international text through the lenses of domestic law." CISG Article 79 is the principal provision governing the extent to which a party is exempt from liability for a failure to perform any of his obligations due to an impediment beyond his control. So-called 'Manfred Forberich' decision regarding the article 79 represents the most extreme example of what is likely the most dangerous error that tribunals applying the CISG can make. CISG Article 79 only governs impossibility of performance, and there is a controversy whether a disturbance which does not fully exclude performance, but it considerably more difficult or onerous(hardship, change of circumstances, economic impossibility) can be considered as an impediment. Unlike PICC and PECL, the CISG governs contract of sale. Therefore, events such as a sudden increase in the price of raw materials or a dramatic devaluation of currency, will not allow the seller to avoid his liability for non-delivery of the goods or to require renegotiation of the terms of the contract of sale. We should bear in mind that the CISG should be interpreted and applied in the context of the CISG itself.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.163-200
• /
• 1999

The CISG entrusts many problems to trade or practice : for example the problems which can't be compromised between civil law system and common law system ; the problems in which the application of usage or practice in universal ; the problems of rapid change according to trade circumstance. The purpose of this paper is to confirm whether the CISG is accomodating the usage or practice in its Text, and to find which topic is most closely related to usage or practice in CISG. The Article 9 in the CISG is a provision of usages or practices applicable to contract. But the problems of the CISG in the accomodation of usages or practices are that it lacks the definitions of ‘usage’ and ‘practices’, the CISG is not concerned with the validity of any usage according to Article 4, and the application of usage or practice may differ in litigation and arbitration The topics such as delivery of goods, payment of price and the transfer of risk are most closely related to usages and practices. The delivery of goods and the transfer of risk are determined by the trade terms like FOB or CIF. But the method of identification and the risk for the sale of goods in transit can't be determined by the trade terms in INCOTERMS(1990). So the CISG may serve as complementing role. In payment of price, the trade term does not refer to the time and place of payment. So the CISG may be the basis of interpretation. Likewise the usages and practices such as trade terms, UCP and so on, can be expected to play a significant role in complementing and interpreting the CISG.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.43-64
• /
• 2023

Purpose - This paper studies whether CISG can be a suitable governing law for pure service contracts. When CISG was first drafted, there was little disagreement on the fact that contracts for the sale of goods and those for the provision of services were two different types of contract. Based on this understanding, CISG explicitly provides that the Convention will apply to contracts where the preponderant part of the contractual obligation is on the sale of goods, not services. However, as more sales transactions have come to include more elements of services, mainly due to the advancement of the IoT industry, the distinction between goods and services became more blurred. Based on the observation of recent changes, some scholars even argue that such a change supports the applicability and suitability of CISG to even pure service contracts. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze and evaluate their argument. Design/methodology - This paper focuses on two separate but related issues: CISG's 'applicability' and 'suitability' to service contracts. For the first issue, this paper will examine the rules of interpretation of international treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, and will apply its rules to find the proper answer. For the second issue, this paper will perform logical and empirical analyses on the reasoning employed by scholars claiming the suitability of CISG to service contracts. Findings - This paper concludes that CISG does not, and should not, apply to pure service contracts. The argument that CISG applies to pure service contracts directly contravenes Article 3(2) of the Convention, which expressly states that it does not apply to a contract wherein the preponderant part of its obligation is about services rather than sales. Similarly, CISG is not a suitable governing law for pure service contracts because it aims provide rules specifically tailored to the needs of transactions of sales of goods, not services. Servitization of sales of goods transaction does not change this conclusion. Originality/value - This paper presents different views from those offered by some eminent scholars on the issue of applicability and suitability of CISG to service contracts. By doing so, it is hoped that the confusion caused in discussions so far are clarified. Hopefully, this paper can also provide practical guidance to practitioners engaged in the fields of international sales, services, and IoT industries.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.193-213
• /
• 2000

The CISG has been legislated for playing roles as uniform rules which govern international sale of goods. The job of getting unification of the diverse domestic legal systems required almost half century of work. In the process of making the Convention some rules resulted from compromises of nation's relevant interests. The Convention, however, promoted both the legal certainty and harmonization in international trade in that the uniform rules suggest the appropriate resolution to the legal problems in the course of concluding a contract as well as in remedies for breach of contract. This paper focuses systematically on the scope of applicability of the CISG. The Convention deals with contracts for the international sale of goods. However, it does not apply to all kinds of the international sale of goods. The CISG confines the sphere of applicability to a certain type of sales. First of all, the CISG is limited to those contracts having been concluded between a particular group of persons, which is called a personal aspect of applicability. Secondly, the CISG covers a specific category of sales, which is called a material aspect of applicability. Thirdly, the CISG are concluded within a particular period of time, which is called a temporal aspect of applicability. Lastly, the CISG is limited to contracts falling within a given territorial sphere, which is called a territorial aspect of applicability.

• 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.