• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

The United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) is legislated for unified of international sale of goods, but does not cover all concerns related to that. Arilce 4 provides the exclusions of CISG. These exclusions might be govern by a domestic law. This paper analyses what are excluding under CISG Article 4, and then provides the Korean and Chinese domestic regulations related to them. At first, whether some issues are excluding based on the interpretation of CISG Article 4 depends on the agreement of parties concerned. An issue that a national law applies even might be invalid if it does not follow the general principles of CISG. In Conclusion, CISG does not cover the validity of the contract and the property in the goods sold under CISG Article 4. a company who trades with Chines company should understand the differences of both countries' regulations about the validity of the contract and the effect of property transfer and be careful to decide a govern law to avoid unnecessary disputes about these issues even though their contract is govern by CISG.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.27 no.4
• /
• pp.91-113
• /
• 2017

UN Convention on International Sale of Goods (CISG) and International Commercial Arbitration aim at the promotion and facilitation of international trade. Both of them share similar general principles; i.e., party autonomy and pacta sunt servanda. Also they are often applied concurrently in the case of the international commercial trade. The purpose of this article is to investigate whether the CISG could apply the formation of the arbitration clause that is included in the main contract governed by CISG. Sellers and buyers have freedom of designating choice of law that is applied to their contracts. An international arbitration agreement is presumed to be separable from the contract in which it is found. However, arbitration clauses commonly form part of a general contract. Thus, the CISG is intended to be applied to dispute resolution clauses, including arbitration clause even if it is not completely suitable. Notably, there is a fundamental distinction between the CISG and arbitration. The CISG abolished the formalities of contract. New York convention requires Contracting States' Courts to enforce written international agreements to arbitrate.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.155-181
• /
• 2012

This study considered as precautions in light of practical affairs related to a claim for damages focusing on CISG (1980) and PICC (2004). Given summarizing contents of this study, those are as follows. First, when exercising a claim for damages, proving the damages may be difficult and hard. Thus, there is necessity for stating the liquidated damages clause in contract given conclusion of contract. Second, as for the application of interest rate given a claim for interest, CISG is not covered interest rate. PICC is covered interest rate. However, there is possibility that PICC will not be applied as general principles. Thus, to remove this insecurity and uncertainty, there is necessity for stating this in contract by deciding on the detailed standard stipulation after fully discussing about interest payment with the counterpart given sale contract. Third, when a seller delivered non-conformity of the goods for contract, a buyer is desirable to exercise by discreetly judging the exercise method or limitation element on a problem of selecting and exercising remedy favorable to oneself out of a claim for damages and a right to reduce the price. Finally, There was suggestion that the contract parties are desirable to utilize by modifying and supplementing properly this in line with own business-based necessity and situation based on the ICC Model International Sale Contract, and to state CISG and PICC the governing law clause, in preparing contract. This study is expected to possibly become guideline in which the damaged party exercises a claim for damages or aims to cope with the counterpart's exercising a claim for damages.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.3-40
• /
• 2005

Many Korean construction companies have been performing a variety of overseas construction projects since the 1970s. It is unfortunate that in many cases they have had to suffer big losses caused by errors and defects in the design and construction of the projects. In the author's opinion, however, there were losses that could have been avoided if they had understood better the feature and content of the particular construction contract. Few lawyers and scholars in Korea have been interested in the research and study of international construction contracts. This is mainly because they do not have access to practical sources outside of Korea for them to research and study since the contracts undertaken have been dealt with by law firms in other jurisdictions to which the disputes apply. This article is aiming primarily at the introduction of the issues which the practitioners are likely to confront in the process of reviewing and performing the international construction contract. In some cases solutions are sought about these issues based upon the FIDIC standard terms and conditions, the actual experience of practice, and UNIDROIT Principles, etc. It is reasonable to say that all the issues related to the international construction contract cannot be covered in a short article like this. The author wishes this article could induce subsequent studies on international construction contracts for further research. It has to be noted that from time to time Korean construction practices have been compared to the international ones for better understanding. This article mostly includes cases where the Korean construction companies go overseas for their projects, while there are some cases where foreign developers and financial investors participated in domestic projects in which international construction contracts forms were adopted. A few precedent domestic writings about international construction contracts seems to lack emphasis on the points that there are several standard construction contract forms and that they are different. The differences are mainly in accordance with who bears the design responsibility, how the owner has to make progress payments to the contractor and who the funding source for the project is. This article tries to make it clear that there are significant differences between the standard contract forms, e.g. a simple construction form, a design-build form and an EPC/turnkey form of contract. Again, the author hopes that this article can arouse the interest in the international construction contracts from both academic and practical fields, so that many subsequent advanced articles can help our construction industry become much more competitive in the world through awareness of the methods of procurement and administration of the contracts.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.43-68
• /
• 2000

Incoterms mean the ICC official rules for the interpretation of trade terms which facilitate the conduct of international trade. Thus, the uncertainties of different interpretations of such terms in different countries can be avoided or at least reduced to a considerable degree. Nevertheless, Incoterms has been revised successively to adapt them to contemporary commercial practice. In particularly, substantive changes in Incoterms 2000 have been made in two areas: (i) the customs clearance under FAS and DEQ; and (ii) the loading and unloading obligations under FCA. But it should be stressed that the scope of Incoterms is limited to the contract of sale and not apply to the contracts of carriage, insurance and financing. Moreover, merchants wishing to use Incoterms 2000 should clearly specify that their contract is governed by 'Incoterms 2000'. It is particularly important to note that Incoterms are not dealt with a great number of problems, such as transfer of property rights, breaches of contract and exemptions from liability. Therefore, the contracting parties should clearly agree to the applicable law related their contract of sale, like the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.189-218
• /
• 2002

The EPC/Turnkey Contract goes to the extreme in allocating risks to the contractor and depending on the types of project, this may be regarded as unacceptable. It has also gone to the extreme in the extent to which the contractor is responsible for the specification and design of the Works. The employer is not responsible for correctness of any information provided by him nor for correctness of any specification or other matter included in the Employer's Requirements, except the definition of the intended purpose and criteria for testing and performance. With such conditions it is surprising that the employer is entitled to interfere in the contractors performance to an extent that is close to what is norm for a construction contract with employer design and with normal risk allocation. The combination of risk allocation and inappropriate administrative provisions makes the EPC/Turnkey Contract a document that will meet severe resistance from contractors. It is also likely that employers will see the risks and difficulties from their own perspective. It is a fiction that the EPC/Turnkey Contract will give the employer a contact with a certainty of final price and completion date. It is not a fiction that the EPC/Turnkey Contract carries many seeds for disputes between the parties. The Orange Book has become an accepted document even if it clearly contains some weaknesses. Some of these have been corrected in the Plant Contract. In my opinion FIDIC should let users become more familiar with the Plant Contract as a follow up to the Orange Book.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.33-66
• /
• 2009

Common law makes a distinction between partial breach and material breach. Attempted definitions of material breach are notoriously unsatisfactory, and the concept of partial breach does not necessarily bear an inverse relationship to substantial performance. This study will review the basic structure of common law contract remedies together with how these remedies are reflected in UCC Article 2 for sale of goods contracts. The matter is complicated because availability of remedy depends on the seriousness of the breach, and the right to cure, and (for sale of goods) these in turn depend on whether the contract is an installment contract or a single performance contract. Common law jurisdictions relegate specific performance of contracts to a last place in the hierarchy of contract remedies. Common law lawyers should recognize that this is the result of historical accident and not the product of some kind of superior intellectual effort. Not only is the attitude of civil law systems toward specific performance quite different, but for international sales contracts in developing nations, a remedy system based on the notion that substitute contracts are readily available(and therefore damage remedies are appropriate) is unrealistic. English common law courts were largely restricted to remedies in the form of monetary damages. For that reason the primary contract remedy at common law has never been specific performance. Rather, common law courts have struggled to develop an appropriate measure of monetary damages for breach of contract. Today, specific performance is viewed as an equitable remedy rather than common law. In the United States the dual court system has been abolished by a merger of law and equity courts into a single court structure. However some historical distinction linger on. The most important is that jury trials are generally not available in actions that seek equitable relief. If a plaintiff seeks in personam relief, such as specific performance of a contract, the action will be viewed as equitable and there will be no entitlement to a jury. Further, equitable relief will be granted only in those situations where the plaintiff pleads and proves that the remedy at law is inadequate. The purpose of this study aims to analyze the remedy system of breach of contract of U.K. and U.S. in the international commercial transactions with criterion of commercial rationality.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.1 no.2
• /
• pp.103-118
• /
• 1998

The contract for the International Sale of Goods is a contract of sale of goods between parties of business in different countries beyond tariff line. In principle, the formation of contracts for the international sale of goods is conventional made through offer and acceptance. Though this principle outwatdly looks simple, They turn out complicated problems as to what is offer or acceptance, especially as to the exact time that contracts go into effect. For that reason, the parties who conclude an international Sales contracts effectively are must understand perfectly in the legal commercial aspects offer or acceptance that become basic elements in the formation contracts for the International Sale of Goods. So, In the thesis I tried to explain principles on the Effective Formation in Contract for the International Sale of Goods based on Revision UCC.