• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.20
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2003

The CISG has been effective since January 1,1988. Even if both parties of international sales contract are located in ratifying countries, the CISG does not apply to certain excluded transactions. The CISG does not apply if the parties have opted out of the CISG. When the parties opt out, they usually agree on the law that is to replace the CISG. In the context of international sales, the frequent and difficult choice of law problems will arise when the CISG applies to a transaction but does not resolve all the legal issues before the tribunal. So this article deals with the question. What should we select the applicable law in such situations? (1) For products liability issues excluded from the CISG by article 4 and 5, the court should apply the substantive law of the market state and the statute of limitations law of the forum, (2) For validity issues excluded from the CISG by article 4(a). the court should apply the UNIDROIT Principles when its rules resolve the issue.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.23-43
• /
• 2016

This study describes the exclusion of the seller's liability for defects in title under CISG and UCC. Through comparing two provisions, this article provides contracting parties with guidance regarding choosing governing laws and practical advice. CISG and UCC states not only the seller's liability for defects in title but also the exclusion respectively. Under two provisions, contracting parties who wish to avoid this liability may agree that the liability will not apply. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(2), the seller's warranty can be disclaimed by specific language in the contract or by the circumstances surrounding the transaction. Although there is no express exclusion provision under CISG Article 41 and 42, Article 6 allows contracting parties to agree that they may exclude the application of the seller's liability. Both Article 42 under CISG and ${\S}$2-213(3) under UCC provide where the buyer furnishes specification to the seller. Under UCC ${\S}$2-213(3), it is the buyer's warranty to hold the seller harmless from any claims which arise from the seller complying with specification furnished by the buyer. But, under CISG Article 42, the seller's duty is excluded if the third party right or claim result from the fact that the seller has complied with specifications provided by the buyer. Therefore Article 42 does not charge the buyer with the duty, but rather limits the circumstances under which he could cause claims under Article 42. Interestingly, CISG has provisions which are absent from UCC. First, under Article 41, the seller escapes the liability if the buyer agree to take the goods subject to the third party right or claim. Second, under Article 42(2)(a), the seller is not liable if the buyer knew or could not have been unaware of the third party right or claim at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.3-25
• /
• 2006

This study focus on interest for arrears and filling of the gaps left in Article 78 of CISG. In the case of CISG, Article 78 provides for interest any time a payment under a contract is untimely, but does not specify a particular rate of interest or a method to determine such a rate. This issue did not cause any uncertainty under ULIS, the CISG's antecedent, since Article 83 of ULIS provided for 1%p above the official discount rate in the creditor's country. Lacking any CISG general principle as well as any indication by the very same CISG, one can only conclude that the matter must be deferred to the domestic rule of private international law. Actually, resorting to private international law is not only admissible, but expressly required by Article 7(2). In the interpretation and filling of the gaps left in Article 78, there is a considerable difference of opinion especially amongst commentators on whether the gap is a lacuna praeter legem, i.e., one being governed by, but not expressly settled in the CISG, or whether it is an issue falling outside the scope of application of the CISG, i.e. a lacuna intra legem. The protagonists of the former view lay emphasis on the overall objective of the CISG, namely to create a uniform law, whereas the supporters of the latter view refer to the legislative history of Article 78 as the dominant principle in interpreting Article 78. Some authors believe that the issue of determining the rate of interest is not dealt with by CISG and it is, therefore, governed by the applicable domestic law, which is the subsidiary law applicable to the sales contract, since "no special connecting points seem to have developed for the entitlement to interest." In the light of the relevant case law, it seems correct to conclude that the interest rate is not determined by CISG and that courts normally determine it according to their own rules of private international law. While CISG Article 78 expressly does not deal with this issue, PICC Article 7.4.9 and PECL Article 9.508, on the other hand, set forth a precise method for computing interest. Although a method like the one set by PICC may be useful and may encourage uniformity, it still cannot be used under the CISG. The PICC or PECL formula may, however, be a very good starting point in a de jure condendum analysis when a new Article 78 will be drafted, if an interest rate method will ever be embodied in the text of an international convention.

• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.459-485
• /
• 2011

This paper examines the seller's obligation to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the sales contract as set forth in articles 30 and 34 of the CISG. Article 30 obliges the seller to band over documents relating to the goods. This obligation to band over documents is further elaborated in article 34. According to article 34, the documents must be tendered at the time and place, and in the form, required by the contract. If the seller has delivered non-conforming documents before the agreed time, he has the right to remedy the defects if this would not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or expense. However, the buyer can claim any damages suffered despite the seller's remedy. Specific emphasis is placed on the interplay between the CISG and Incoterms. Incoterms contain detailed rules governing the obligations of the seller to provide for documents. Incoterms constitute international trade usage under articles 9(1) and 9(2) CISG and supplement construction of CISG with UCP under L/C transaction. In the event of failure by seller to deliver the necessary documents, the buyer has certain remedies available, such as the right to claim damages, the right to demand specific performance, and the right to repair. Furthermore, the failure to deliver the required documents under contract constitute a fundamental breach of the underlying sales contract as defined by article 25 of the CISG by the seller, and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract entirely article 49. However, it is stressed that since one of the main principles of the CISG is the preservation of the contract, the avoidance of the contract should remain a remedy of last resort.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.57-84
• /
• 2009

This Study attempts to compare and analyze on Principle of Change Circumstances under th CISG, PICC and PECL which are covered international commercial contract. In many international commercial contract, time is very important because delays in performance are sanctioned heavily by substantial penalty clauses. When change in circumstances affects contract performance, the contract will often not be suspended or terminated. Therefore, principle of change circumstances is being prepared of fluidity of contract environment and its effect in general. Taking into consideration the problems relating to the renegotiation or adaptation in the cases of radical change of circumstances where the CISG applies, it is suggested that the contracting parties should make clear their intentions, that is, whether they will provide for the possibility of renegotiation where the price of goods has been altered by inserting a hardship clause or for the possibility of mutual discharge from liability in the cases of economic impossibility or hardship by inserting a force majeure clause. Such provision will be desirable especially in situations where there is a long term contract, the price of goods sold tends to fluctuate in the international commerce, or where especially in contracts subjected to arbitration, the parties subject their contract to legal sources or principles of supranational character. Therefore, this study has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC and PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and PECL Article 6.111.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.159-185
• /
• 2011

This paper is intended to discuss the controversial issue of the principles of change circumstances under the legal system of international commercial transactions. The principles of change circumstances, so called clausula rebus sic stantibus is the legal doctrine allowing for treaties to become inapplicable because of a fundamental change of circumstances. It is essentially an "escape clause" that makes an exception to the general rule of pacta sunt servanda (promises must be kept). The practical needs of international transactions differ from the established concepts of national contracts law. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal system and theories under the regimes of international commercial transactions such as the CISG, the PICC, and the PECL. Clausula rebus sic stantibus does not apply if the parties to a treaty had contemplated for the occurrence of the changed circumstance. It only relates to the changed circumstances that were never contemplated by the parties. This paper has shown that the hardship provisions in the CISG, PICC, PECL has similarities to each a validity defense and an excuse defense. it was provisions that CISG governs this issue in Article 79, PICC Article 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3(in addition to Article 7.1.7), PECL Article 6.111(in addition to 8.108). It is time when we should reconsider its legal system with great interest in order to harmonize with the international standpoint. It will be the turning point of our viepoint under the international commercial transactions.

• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.147-175
• /
• 2014

In contracts for the international sale of goods, a seller must deliver appropriate goods and hand over relevant documents according to a contract, which will transfer the ownership of the goods to a buyer. In this case, if there are defects in the contracted goods, the warranty liability will occur. However, in the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), a term-the conformity of the goods to the contract-is used universally instead of the warranty. According to the CISG, a seller must deliver goods in conformance with the relevant contract in terms of quantity, quality, and specifications, and they must be contained in vessels or in packages according to the specifications in the contract. In addition, a certain set of requirements for conformity will be applied implicitly except when there is a separate agreement between parties. Further, the base period of conformity concerning the defects of goods is the point when the risk is transferred to the buyer. A seller shall be obliged to deliver goods that do not belong to a third party or subject to a claim then, and such obligations shall affect the right or claim of a third party to some extent based on intellectual property rights clauses. If the goods delivered by the seller lack conformity, or incur right infringement or claim of a third party, then it shall be regarded as a default item per the obligation of the seller. Thus, the buyer can exercise diverse means of relief as specified in Chapter 2, Section 3 (Article 45-Article 52) of the CISG. However, such means of relief have been utilized in various ways for individual cases as shown in judicial precedents made until now. Contracting parties shall thus keep in mind that it is best for them to make every contract airtight and they should implement each contract thoroughly and faithfully to cope with any possible occurrence of a commercial dispute.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.1-23
• /
• 2015

A party who relies on a breach of contract must take such measures as are reasonable in the circumstances to mitigate the loss, including loss of profit, resulting from the breach. Appropriate measures are those aimed at lessing the loss as far as reasonably possible. Such measures will typically be a resale of the goods by the seller or a cover purchase by the buyer. The measures the injured party is expected to take in order to mitigate the loss must be reasonable in the circumstances. Article 77 will be applied to the difference between the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated under Article 77. A reduction of damages is the only remedy available to the party in breach in cases covered by Article 77. If the buyer has received the goods and intends to exercise any right under the contract or this Convention to reject them, he must take such steps to preserve them as are reasonable in the circumstances. If goods dispatched to the buyer have been placed at his disposal at their destination and he exercises the right to reject them, he must take possession of them on behalf of the seller. Article 86(1) requires that the buyer manifest his intention at the moment of receipt of the goods. Article 86(2) envisages that the goods have been dispatched to the buyer and that they have been placed at his disposal at their destination. Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person. It is not necessary that the warehouse by public, or that it be a general warehouse for storage. A party who is bound to preserve the goods in accordance with articles 86 may sell them by any appropriate means taking possession of the goods or in taking them back or in paying the price or the cost of preservation. If the goods are subject to rapid deterioration or their preservation world involve unreasonable expense, a party who is bound to preserve the goods must take reasonable measures to sell them. A difference exists between paragraph Article 88 (1) which grants the right to sell, and paragraph (2 )which imposes the duty to take reasonable measures to sell the goods. According to Article 88(2), the party who wishes to sell must give notice to the other party of such intention, to the extent possible.