Search | Korea Science

Buyer's Right of Rejection and Revocation of Acceptance under the Uniform Commercial Code Compared with English Law (UCC상 매수인의 물품거절 및 승낙 철회권의 영국법과의 비교연구)

Lee, Byung-Mun
- THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
- /
- v.28
- /
- pp.3-36
- /
- 2005
Most legal systems provides the aggrieved buyer with a right to put an end to the contract. Unlike Civil Law systems, the right is rather complicated and uncertain in Common Law systems because they do not sharply distinguish between a refusal which amounts merely to a defence in the nature of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus, and one which is intended to abrogate the aggrieved party's obligations completely and to seek restitution of what he has already performed. That is, they do not draw any sharp distinction between the right of rejection or revocation and the right to put an end to the contract. This explains why the right to put an end to the contract under Civil Law systems are often compared with the right of rejection or revocation under Common Law systems in most academic papers. Having said that, this article describes and analyzes in detail the relevant UCC rules to the buyer's right of rejection and revocation, particularly the rules on the requirements for the right of rejection or revocation. This is for the purpose of providing legal advice to our sellers residing either in U.S.A. or in Korea who plan to enter into U.S.A markets and take academics' interest in the buyer's right which is deemed to be unique compared to the Civil Law systems. In addition, the study attempts to compare the rules as to the right of rejection and revocation under the UCC with those of English law which are stipulated mainly in the Sale of Goods Act (1979) in a statutory form. This may help one better to understand the rules of the UCC which are mostly originated with English law and to find in what way the rules of the UCC depart from those of English law.
PDF

A Study on the Validity and Practical Application of Liquidated Damage Clause(LD Clause) in International Sales Contract (국제물품매매계약(國際物品賣買契約)에서 'Liquidated Damage Clause'(LD 조항(條項))의 유효성(有效性)과 실무적(實務的) 적용(適用)에 관한 연구)

Oh, Won-Suk
- THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
- /
- v.17
- /
- pp.71-91
- /
- 2002
The purpose of this paper is to examine the viewpoints of the different legal systems for the validity of LD Clause and the possibility of gap-filling function of UNIDROIT Principles in International Sales Contract. The results of comparative study between common law system and civil law system, and between CISG and UNCDROIT Principles is as follows: First, common law system distinguishes LD Clause and Penalty Clause, but civil law system including Korean law does not strictly distinguish the difference between them, provided that the liquidated damages are not grossly excessive. Second, CISG does not concerned with the validity of LD Clause but entrust this matter to the law applicable by virtue of the rules of private international law; conversely the Principles follow similar position of civil law system. The possibility of gap-filling of the Principles is more positive in the case of arbitration than in the case of litigation. On the basis of above study, I also checked the LD Clauses of ICC Model International Sales and the Model Contracts of Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The LD Clauses of there two Model Contract seem very appropriate and reasonable for the reference in practical application. The appropriate, not excessive, LD Clause will contribute not only to eliminate the burden of proof for the actual damages, but also to enforce both parties to perform their obligations in their contracts. Therefore, When we make contract, we should keep in our mind to insert the reasonable and appropriate LD Clause in the sales contract. If not, so to speak, litigated damages are grossly excessive, the Clause may be invalid in some legal system.
PDF

A Study of Electronic Transaction Law : Basic Electronic Trasaction Law in Korea and Uniform Electronic Transaction Act (전자상거래법 소고 - 우리나라 전자거래기본법과 미국 통일전자거래법 (Uniform Electronic Transaction Act)을 중심으로 -)

Kim, Un-Young
- Korean Business Review
- /
- v.13
- /
- pp.207-221
- /
- 2000
In this era of changing system, we may learn lesson from newly developed Uniform Electronic Transation Act(UETA) in 1999. Korea has its counterpart as the Basic Electronic Transaction Act and Electronic Signature Act made by 1999. While UETA stresses on transaction law between individuals, that of Korean stresses on the role of government in electronic transaction. Both laws have the common definitions as electronic record, electronic signature, however, UETA has its own definitions such as automated transaction, computer program, electronic agent, information, information processing system, and security procedure. Especially, transferable record in section 16 is one of the most unique concept which Korean law does not provide. Korean government is planning to introduce electronic note in the near future, which will make unprecedented reform in Korean financial industry. Since Korean law does not have such a concept as electronic note, revision of the law is expected soon. Korean law has its specialty which puts stress on cyber mall, authentication agency, and consumer protection. In U.S., the interpretation of law by court is important when they have disputes according to common law traditon. Studies on cases on disputes in U.S. is needed most for Korean application.
PDF