• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.251-293
• /
• 2002

The study is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers defective goods or documents of three legal systems; the CISG, English law and Korean law. The purposes underlying this study are twofold. The first is to clarify the current position as to the right of withholding performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective goods or documents in Korean law, CISG and English law so that it may assist the parties in drafting the buyer's right to withhold performance in their own contract. The second is to compare the rules of one jurisdiction with those of other jurisdictions and to evaluate the rules in light of the practical functions and benefits of the right to withhold performance and the discipline of comparative law the basic question of which is whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. It shows that each jurisdiction does not have any provision or case law specifically dealing with the buyer's right to withhold performance where the seller delivers the goods which are defective in terms of quality or quantity. The absence of such provision or case in each jurisdiction has resulted in either disputes or uncertainty. However, the study executed in light of the primary functions and benefits of the right in practice and the discipline of comparative law reveals that, first, the view in English law which is against recognizing the right may not be justified when one considers the practical importance of having the right and the position taken by the CISG as a well developed and modernized law, second, the view in Korean law which argues that the principle of specific goods dogma on which it is based is extended even to substitutable or repairable goods cannot be also justified on the ground of one's ordinary expectation and the position under the CISG and English law which imposes a contractual duty to deliver non-defective goods on the seller insofar as the buyer's payment is deemed to be made in exchange for the seller's delivery of non-defective goods and they are substitutable or repairable. Regarding the right to withhold performance in the event of the seller's tender of defective documents, the study shows that the relatively detailed rules in English law may be utilized as a guideline to fill the gap in the CISG and Korean law in terms of the practicability and appropriateness to govern documentary sales. Furthermore, it is found that the position in English law which confers on the buyer the right to withhold performance for a trivial defect in documents may be unreasonable in terms of one's need to enable justice to be done in individual cases.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• autumn
• /
• pp.23-30
• /
• 2001

The Financial Cost in construction industry today is tend to increasing the burden of business management on account of lowered profit due to the mege-competition and decreasing investment of construction, multi-interfacing. system in it's attribute and various unreasonable governeing enactments. It is becoming the most important aspects for the management of construction business on how to preserve the profit from the various risks. The ultimate aims of this study is to pursue the contractual equity between the parties by establishing the fundamentals of framework for the compensation of Financial Charges through the review of the precedent studies and analysis of inquiries. As a result of the study, improvable measures for any practical inequality and/or institutional defects of current public contract system in recovering the Financial Cost incurred to Contractor are delivered as below; (1) $\lceil$Working Rules for Construction Industry Accounting Standards$\rfloor$ shall be amended and supplemented so as the incurred interest to be recognized as an operative cost by live return over the collection period. (2) The long-term phase contract system of which is enforcing contractor to bear the certain losses shall be diminished and/or abolished gradually. (3) The unreasonable legislations on compensation for financial cost in contract conditions shall be improved in response to practical circumstances. (4) The use of Critical-Path Method for Time Management shall be activated together with EVMS. (5) Independent application of Contract Enactments for construction industry shall be adopted.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.71-96
• /
• 2008

Arbitration is fundamentally a matter of contract, whereby contractual parties may only be required to submit a dispute to arbitration pursuant to their formal agreement. However, there are several important exceptions to this rule that have developed under common law notions of implied consent. These doctrines may serve either to benefit or to harm a nonsignatory to an arbitral agreement because either (1) the nonsignatory may compel a signatory to the agreement to arbitrate a dispute or (2) the nonsignatory may be compelled to arbitrate a dispute despite never having signed an arbitration agreement. The Court has a long-standing domestic policy of favoring arbitration, and these doctrines reflect that policy. 1. incorporation by reference An arbitration clause may apply to a party who is a nonsignatory to one agreement containing an arbitration clause but who is a signatory to a second agreement that incorporates the terms of the first agreement. 2. assumption An arbitration clause may apply to a nonsignatory who has impliedly agreed to arbitrate. Under this theory, the nonsignatory's conduct is a determinative factor. For example, a nonsignatory who voluntarily begins arbitrating the merits of a dispute before an arbitral tribunal may be bound by the arbitrator's ruling on that dispute even though the nonsignatory was not initially required to arbitrate the dispute. 3. agency A nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement may be bound to arbitrate a dispute stemming from that agreement under the traditional laws of agency. A principal may also be bound to arbitrate a claim based on an agreement containing an arbitration clause signed by the agent. The agent, however, does not generally become individually bound by executing such an agreement on behalf of a disclosed principal unless there is clear evidence that the agent intended to be bound. 4. veil piercing/alter ego In the corporate context, a nonsignatory corporation to an arbitration agreement may be bound by that agreement if the agreement is signed by its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate. 5. estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel is usually applied by nonsignatory defendants who wish to compel signatory plaintiffs to arbitrate a dispute. This will generally be permitted when (1) the signatory must rely on the terms of the contract in support of its claims against the nonsignatory, or (2) the signatory alleges that it and the nonsignatory engaged in interdependent misconduct that is intertwined with the obligations imposed by the contract. Therefore, this article analyzed these doctrines centering around case-law in America.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.617-625
• /
• 2013

"Sale and purchase brokers" are independent contractors who act as agents for principals intending to seller or buy ships in English Maritime Law. The essential feature is that legal position of shipbroker is largely one of agency. They can be obtained by a study of the Lloyd's Register or the equivalent registers of other Classification Societies, the American Bureau of Shipping and Korean Registers. Such a broker is of valuable assistance to the prospective seller or purchaser. And the broker's liability normally arises in the context of a contract. But, expressed in general terms, those contractual obligations are, in absence of contrary agreement, to act with reasonable care and skilled to obtain the cover requested by his client not to guarantee that such will be concluded and to ensure that the scope of the policy, its essential terms and relevant exclusions are made known to the insured. Acting in this professional capacity, the broker's liability are such that the facts upon which an action for breach of contract may be based may also found an action for the trot of negligence provided that there is shown to be the necessary 'assumption of responsibility' by the broker conveyed directly or indirectly to the insured. This thesis deals with liability of S&P Brokers, the legal problems of ship broking, commission, conflicts of interest and secret commissions in English Maritime Law and the Cases.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.81-98
• /
• 2022

Purpose - This study aims to compare the requirements under the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sales of Goods (CISG) and the Korean Civil Act (KCA) regarding the buyer's right to require the delivery of substitute goods. The buyer's right to demand substitute delivery not only protect them from the seller's breach of contract but also preserves the contractual bond between the parties by providing an opportunity for sellers to protect their goodwill and circumvent the extreme remedy of avoidance. However, as substitute delivery entails additional efforts and costs for return and re-shipment, this right should not be allowed in every case of defect. Additionally, unlike the CISG, the KCA contains no specific provision related to the requirements for claiming substitute delivery. Therefore, it would be meaningful to examine and compare what requirements should be fulfilled before the buyer exercises the right in relation to non-conforming goods under the CISG and the KCA. Design/methodology - We conducted a comparative study of the requirements under the CISG and the KCA regarding the buyer's right to require delivery of substitute goods given a seller's delivery of non-conforming goods. Additionally, we referred to the opinions from the CISG Advisory Council, the draft of the KCA amendment, and related precedents, mainly focusing on the existence and severity of defects, reasonableness, and timely notice and requests as the major requirements for substitute delivery. Findings - The results of this study can be summarized as follows: First, the CISG provides more detailed requirements about the right to require delivery of substitute goods; by contrast, the KCA does not stipulate any such requirement. Thus, specific requirements for substitute delivery should be included when amending the KCA. Second, the CISG attempts to minimize overlapping and conflict with other remedies by specifying detailed requirements for the delivery of substitutes. Third, both the CISG and KCA require reasonableness for substitute delivery. Originality/value - Although there are no explicit legal requirements for substitute delivery under the KCA, there has been relatively little discussion of this issue to date. Therefore, the findings of our study can guide future revisions of the KCA to fill this loophole. Moreover, the recently released CISG Advisory Council opinion that clarifies the continuing confusion and debate, can help distinguish which remedy is suitable for a particular case. It may provide practical advice for businesspeople in international trade as well as legal implications for the future development of the KCA.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.35-65
• /
• 2013

In December 2012, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and Ministry of Knowledge Economy held a commission and distributed a standardized logistics contract between the shipper and the logistics companies in order to spread and to promote contract standardization. With such background in place, this study examines the leading research on different types and attributions in present logistics contracts in order to propose guidelines for creating contract clauses that would lead to a win-win relationship among the parties involved in the logistics outsourcing relationships. This study further compares and contrasts the concreteness of local and international logistics contracts through case studies, and provides practical thought-provoking points on concretization of clauses on potential risks and additional expenses for local logistics companies when signing logistics contracts. Firstly, the composition and contents of both local and international logistics contracts are similar in the way that both deal with the basic principles between the concerned parties such as the following: contract terms, validity, scope of work, operational procedures, payment terms, and dispute resolutions. Secondly, for flexibility of potential dispute resolution, both logistics contracts define the definition of dispute and follow the classical contractual approach of dispute resolution through third-party arbitration. Thirdly, compared to local contracts, international logistics contracts provide more concretized and specific clauses on the occurrence of potential risks and hazards; on the other hand, compared to international logistics contracts, it seemed that local contracts contained more clauses in favor of the shipper. This research then suggests ideas to eliminate the classic tradition - logistics companies enduring the damages that occur as a result of the structural differences between the shipper and the logistics companies - through efforts to actively negotiate in advance the predictable problems and risks and by reflecting the mutually agreed points in the contract, and further offers guidelines on contract concretization for distribution of standardized logistics contracts in the future.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.113-136
• /
• 2020

Worldwide, so-called 'over-booking' of Air Carriers is established in practice. Although not invalid, despite their current contracts, passengers can be refused boarding, which can hinder travel planning. The Korean Supreme Court ruled that an airline carrier who refused to board a passenger due to over-booking was liable for compensation under the "Nonperformance of obligation". But what the court should be thinking about is when the benefit(transport) have been disabled. Thereforeit may be considered that the impossibility of benefit (Transport) due to the rejection of boarding caused by 'Over-booking' may be not the 'subsequent impossibility', but not the 'initialimpossibility '. The legal relationship due to initial impossibility is nullity (imposibilium nulla est obligation). When benefits are initial impossibile, our civil code recognizes liability for damages in accordance with the law of "Culpa in Contrahendo", not "nonperformance of obligation". On this reason, the conclusion that the consumer will be compensated for the loss of boarding due to overbooking by the Air Carrier is the same, but there is a need to review the legal basis for the responsibility from the other side. However, it doesn't matter whether it is non-performance or Culpa in Contrahendo. Rather, the recognition of this compensation is likely to cause confusion due to unstable contractual relationships between both parties. Even for practices permitted by Air Carriers, modifications to current customary overbooking that consumers must accept unconditionally are necessary. At the same time, if Air Carriers continue to be held liable for non-performance of obligations due to overselling tickets, it can be fatal to the airline business environment that requires overbooking for stable profit margins. Therefore, it would be an appropriate measure for both Air Carriers and passengers if the Air Carrier were to be given a clearer obligation to explain (to the consumer) and, at the same time, if the explanation obligation is fulfilled, the Air Carrier would no longer be forced to take responsibility for overbooking.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.37-62
• /
• 2016

Two controversial issues exist in interpretation of "Force Majeure" set forth in the Article 931 (4) of the Korean Commercial Code. Firstly, its scope of application is ambiguous. Secondly, there is a concern that the "immunity" under paragraph 1 and "Force Majeure" may overlap each other. "Force Majeure" refers an event resulted from either natural disaster or 3rd-party. Meanwhile, the latter implies relatively extensive and comprehensive meaning and its interpretation may vary depends on law enforcement. In general, the aircraft accident hardly results in damage or loss to the 3rd-party. Additionally, it is worth to review newly enacted clause and to define its applicability. When the 3rd party is suffered from damage or loss incurred by any external act, it is necessary to explicit the concept of the non-contractual liabilities with respect to 3rd party. From the perspective of protecting aviation industries, the commercial aviation operator may be entitled to immunity in respect of claim for damage incurred by the event of Force Majeure. However, this approach is directly opposite to the victim's benefit and protection by the law. Therefore, the priority of the legal protection should be considered. Although the interest of the commercial aviation operator is not negligible, the protection of the law should be favorable to the 3rd party. Otherwise, the innocent party has no right to claim for damage incurred by aviation accident. Another issue is about the possibility of overlapping of the provision set forth in the paragraph 1 and 4. The former states that the liabilities shall be exempted on account of either the unsettled political or economic situation but this clause is inconsistent with the interpretation on Force Majeure under the latter. As argued above, this may include any event resulted from either political or economic account by the external influence of the 3rd party, thus these two provisions are overlapped. Consequently, in order to develop ordinances and guidelines and to ensure an equal protection to both parties, above two issues must remain open for further discussions.