• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 1999

Under the CISG, there is a unequitable factor in comparing buyer's remedy with seller's remedy. In my opinion, CISG is more unequitable remedy clause than UCC or UNIDROIT principle of International Commercial Contract(1994) between seller and buyer. First, buyer who accepted defect goods must give seller notice the facts that seller delivered defect goods in two years after accepting defect goods. The cap of two year is unreasonable in a position of aggrieved buyer. This is being provided as 'within reasonable time' in UCC and there is no such provision in UNIDROIT Principle. Second, Buyer can avoid contract when seller breached fundamentally contract or seller didn't set a additional performance period about breaching of contract. Accordingly if buyer would not set a additional performance period, although seller's breachment of contract, he could not avoid the contract. Therefore, From a viewpoint of aggrieved buyer avoidable right of contract is restrainted. Third, to compare seller's remedy with buyer's, seller have more opportunity to cure breachment of contract than buyer. Under the CISG buyer is relatively placed at disadvantage in remedy of aggrieved party. In connection with remedy of aggrieved party, 'UNIDROIT principle of international commercial contracts' instead seller and buyer of aggrieved party, so there is not unequitable factor in remedy of aggrieved parties.

• 한국무역상무학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2004.12a
• /
• pp.9-40
• /
• 2004

"UNIDROIT Principles 2004" focused on an enlargement rather than a revision. An additional Section or Chapter so to speak, which are about, the Authority of a Agents, Third Party Rights, Set-off, Assignment of Rights, Transfer of Obligations and Assignment of Contracts, and Limitation Periods have been added, while the only change of substance made to the 1994 Edition, apart from two paragraphs in the Preamble, and three new provisions in Chapter 1 and 2 which are necessary to adapt the Principles to the needs of electronic contracting. The Principles which have the nature of the restatement of international uniform laws (for example CISG) are continuous exercise. Therefore we should note whether in the future our concerns would be on a additional topics on a improvement of the current text by monitoring the reception of the "UNIDROIT Principles 2004" in practice, and the application by contracting parties. The purposes of the Principles may be classified into three ; the rules of law governing the contract, means of interpreting and supplementing international uniform law or domestic law, or models for national and international legislator. Among them, the function of governing law may be applied by the express choice by the parties or by the implied choice like "general principles of law" or "les mercatoria", and it may be applied in the absence of any choice of law by the parties. Among there importance functions, this writer would like to emphasize the function to supplementing international uniform law instruments. The reason is that the CISG which has been established as an international uniform sales act and to which our country would be a contracting State from March, 2005, needs a lot of gap-filling. For this purpose it is advisable the parties to insert following provisions in their contract. "This contract shall be governed by the CISG, supplemented when necessary by the UNIDROIT Principles 2004" Thus success in practice of the UNIDROIT Principles over the last then years has surpassed the most optimistic expectations. It is hoped that the 2004 Edition of the UNIDROIT Principles will be just as favorably received by legislators, business persons, lawyers, arbitrators and judges and become even better known and more widely used throughout the World.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.61-104
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this work aims to analyse the principles of good faith under international transaction with CLOUT and UNILEX cases. Article 7(1) CISG sets the stage for the interpretation by promoting a uniform approach using good faith and the international charter of the convention. In other words, article 7(1) defines the purpose and the principle of interpretation and is applied to the Convention as a whole. As such, it also includes article 7(2), which goes beyond the big picture and settles the problems of gap filling. It is also important to understanding that the mandate of the CISG is to look for a solution, which is not only restricted to interpretation but extends to solving a problem. The problem in this work is to find out how gap filling is achieved and, because of the autonomous mandate of interpretation, to explain and understand its relationship with domestic law. The solution to the interpretation of article 7(2) must be found within the four corners of the CISG. To restate, article 7(2) describes two situations where gap filling is needed. First, if the matter is governed by the Convention but not expressly settled, then a gap must be filled in conformity with general principles on which it is based. Second, if the matter is not covered then the gap must be filled taking domestic law into consideration. There are two reasons why a matter may not be covered by the Convention. First and most obviously, it has been specifically exclude from the sphere of Application by the CISG itself, such as validity in article 4. Second, changes in business methods will lead to gaps. The United Nations has established a service known as CLOUT. This contains abstracts of hundreds of selected decisions of both courts and arbitration tribunals. And UNILEX is cosponsored by the Italian Centre for Comparative and Foreign Law Studies and UNIDROIT Contract Principles. The cases are in abstract format, but, when available, the full text of the case in the original language is also supplied.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.131-155
• /
• 2011

PICC executes its role as a useful lex mercatoria in the continuously increasing international trade to be adopted as the standard criterion of prevention or dispute resolution. When considering the fact that GISG has not presented results beyond expectation in the past due to hard laws and legal deficiency, PICC, which possesses interpretation and supplementation function, is considered undoubtedly useful particularly in international commercial arbitration. As observed in the previously mentioned analysis on cases accumulated in UNILEX, PICC application and Arbitral tribunal in international contract between parties possess considerably large claim possibility and the number of actual application cases is continuously increasing. The fact that PICC has been composed as maximum common measures of continental and common law systems by traditional comparative legal scholars familiar with international trade can function as the fundamental principle in future global trade activity and can also act as the model law for uniting contract laws of nations. In this aspect, PICC can be evaluated to have considerably achieved enactment purpose of previous intention. However, additional topics that had not been accepted in the revised edition of PICC remain as assignments requiring solution, such as analysis and acceptance problem of comparative law, PR of PICC unfamiliar even to the relative parties of international trade and application in international contract, and absorption problem as model law in various domestic laws.

• 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.