• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.52
• /
• pp.3-22
• /
• 2011

This study examines the seller's liability to transfer the property to the buyer. Even though contracting parties choose CISG as the governing law regulating their obligations and rights by means of their contract, CISG does not concern with the effect generated by the transfer of property. Thus, the issues of the property is settled in conformity with the domestic law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law. By considering the general rules of the transfer of property in goods under SGA and KCC as the lex rei sitae, the difference of requirements to pass the property between them is analyzed and then the reasons why the transfer of property is importantly considered are discussed. In addition, as CISG does not exclude completely the matters concerning the property and provides the provision like Art 41, the seller's liability to deliver goods free from the third party right or claim is examined under Art 41. Lastly, the practical advice is suggested.

• 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.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

The article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code allowed the third party to invoke a direct action against the insurer under a liability insurance. Meanwhile, the owners of the vessel enter into the P&I Insurance Contract with the P&I Club to indemnify all kinds of liability or expenses involved in the operation of its vessel. However, the Rule Book under the P&I Insurance mostly included the Pay to be Paid Clause which precludes the third party's direct action. Recently, the Seoul Central District Court passed a judgement on the validity of the Pay to be Paid Clause under the Korean law against the third party i.e. the cargo insurer having the right of subrogation. The court held that (1) the third party's right of direct action is not the right to claim insurance money but the right to claim damages against the P&I Club, (2) the insurer under a liability insurance is deemed to assume liability jointly and severally with the insured against the third party, (3) the Article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code is considered as a compulsory provision because it was invented to protect the innocent third party, the Paid to be Paid Clause is thus null and void. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the appropriateness of this court's judgments by comparative analysis of Korean and English law, and to suggest the relevant amendments of the Korean Commercial Code in order to prevent further legal disputes. The article criticizes the decision of the Seoul Central District Court, taking the attitude that, since the third party's right is the right to claim insurance money, the Paid to be Paid Clause is valid against the third party.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.62
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2014

Article 77 sets forth the principle of prevention applied in several legal systems. Under this principle the party threatened by ooss as a consequence of a breach of contract by the other party is not permitted to await passively incurrence of the loss and then sue for damages. He is obliged to take adequate preventive measures to mitigate his loss. If the injured party abstains from taking such excessive measures he will not be considered to have failed to mitigate the loss under Article 77. The sanction provided in Article 77 against a party who fails to mitigate his loss only enables the other party to claim reduction in the damages. The reduction in damages under Article 77 is equal to the amount by which the loss should have been mitigated if the injured party had taken reasonable measures to avert or to lessen it. The aim of Article 77 is to encourage mitigation of the loss. The duty to mitigate the loss applies not only to a breach of contract in respect of an obligation whose performance is currently due. but also to an anticipatory breach of contract under Article 71. Article 85 contemplates that the buyer is in delay in fulfilling the latter obligation, or else that he fails to pay the price when payment is to be made concurrently with delivery of the goods by the seller. In both these situations of default, the seller who is either in possession of the goods or otherwise able to control their disposition must take measures, reasonable in the circumstances, to preserve them. The right of retention of the goods y the seller exists until he is reimbursed by the other party for the reasonable expenses incurred. Article 87 and Article 88 of the Convention grant different rights to the party obligated to take steps to preserve the goods; Article 87 allows him to deposit them in the warehouse of a third person, and Article 88 to sell them by whatever means appropriate. 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• 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.20
• /
• pp.113-127
• /
• 2003

In some legal systems property passes at the time of the conclusion of the contract. In other legal systems property passes at some later time such as the time at which the goods are delivered to the buyer. It was not regarded possible to unify the rule on this point nor was it regarded necessary to do so since rules are provided by this CISG for several questions linked, at least in certain legal systems, to the passing of property. Even though the CISG rules that it does not govern the passing of property in the goods sold, it does not exclude completely the effect which the contract may have on the property in the goods sold. Problems that under some domestic systems are decided by reference to the "property" concept are governed by specific provisions of the CISG. First of All, the CISG(Arts. 41 and 42) deals with seller's obligation to the buyer that the goods be free of third party claims. Moreover, Article 45 gives a buyer the right to require the seller to deliver goods that the seller wrongfully withholds. Secondly, Article 81(2) gives a seller the right to claim restitution of goods for which the buyer fails to pay. Domestic law must respect these rights as between the seller and buyer; if such rights between the parties prevail over the claims of creditors or other third parties under domestic law, domestic tribunals should give the same effect to rights established by the CISG. Thirdly, the right to sell the goods arises where there has been an unreasonable delay by the party in taking possession of them or in taking them back(Article 88).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.51-70
• /
• 2015

The Rotterdam Rules are not phrased in favour of FOB seller's legal status. Whether it will be wise under the Rotterdam Rules to trade on the basis of cash against M/R largely depends on the interpretation of various provisions of the Rotterdam Rules. To protect his interests the M/R holder and his assigns must have a right of delivery of the cargo at the port of destination. The M/R holder and his assigns must be entitled to the bill of lading or at least be able to prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to the shipper. Besides, any additional right of instruction on the part of the shipper must be blocked. Article 35 of the Rules entitles only the shipper to the bill of lading while 47 entitles only the holder of the bill of lading to delivery. When no bill of lading has been issued Article 45 grants to the shipper a right of instruction whereby the shipper is allowed to advise the carrier as to the name and the address of the consignee. I have suggested that by lack of a specific provision to the contrary the Rotterdam Rules have to be considered to be embedded in the system of law as a whole. From the Common Law it follows that a M/R holder, as owner of the cargo, can ask for delivery of the cargo. As owner of the cargo a M/R holder can also claim the bill of lading, if he does so in time, because it must be implied in the contract of carriage that the carrier must deliver the bill of lading to the owner of the goods. It is for the same reason that a M/R holder can prevent the carrier from issuing the bill of lading to any third party but the M/R holder and from taking instructions from the shipper as to name and address of a consignee other than the M/R holder.