• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.133-162
• /
• 1999

The international sale transaction is in essence a sale of goods and presents all those commercial and legal problems in any sale of goods. As a result, A International sales contract imposes several duties on the parties : the seller must deliver the goods and transfer ownership in them, while the buyer must pay the price and take delivery of the goods. However, there are several problems which impede a active transaction between seller and buyer who have their places of business in other countries each other. Therefore, It is necessary to provide the concept on the conformity of goods in the Int'l Sale of Goods. Especially, In our consideration for the point of time when defects occurs, the existence of non-conformity of goods should be judged on the basis of time of delivery rather than time of contract. Moreover, The burden of proof about nonconformity of goods is another fact which make an international dispute between the contractual parties in an international trade. Thus, The consistency in the interpretation of law must be maintained betweened the warranty and seller's liability. In the Uniform Commercial Code and UN Convention, non-conformity of contract is made of contract liability. And in our civil and commercial law provisions of warranty should be understand as the special ones of the provisions of general non-performance of obligation liability. As a result, More concrete study of them is required because they may have a great influence especially on international trade. As a result, We should be our best in finding a helpful and systematic structure that the dualistic structure of nonperformance of obligation liability and warranty liability must be unified by studying the theories of English and American warranty and our legal system, as well as international practice and usage being used in an international trade.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this paper is to provide a legal implication about conformity of goods in the international commercial transactions. There are so many legal relationship after the formation of contract. The most of important thing among the obligations of seller is to provide conformal goods which are of quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. If seller violate above duties, seller take the warranty liability. However, CISG describe the conformity of the goods instead of the warranty as follows. First, CISG Art.35(1) states standards for determining whether goods delivered by the seller conform to the contract and Art.35(2) describes standards relating to the goods' quality, function and packaging that, while not mandatory, are presumed to be a part of sales contracts. Article 35(2) is comprised of four subparts. Two of the subparts (article 35(2) (a) and article 35(2)(d)) apply to all contracts unless the parties have agreed otherwise. Second, CISG Art.36 and 38 deals with the time at which a lack of conformity in the goods must have arisen in order for the seller to be liable for it. If seller lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time, seller is liable for a lack of conformity existing when risk passed to the buyer. Third, CISG Art.49 describe that a buyer who claims that delivered goods do not conform to the contract has an obligation to give the seller notice of the lack of conformity. The most of important things about CISG articles and precedents is that buyer is aware of the lack of conformity and notice it to seller. Failure to satisfy the notice requirements of article 39 eliminates a buyer's defence, based on a lack of conformity in delivered goods, to a seller's claim for payment of the price. Consequently, parties of contract had better agree to the notifying times about lack of conformity. Also, If seller fined the non-conformity, seller has to notify this circumstance to the buyer within short period or agreed time.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.39
• /
• pp.27-55
• /
• 2008

The concept of non-conformity is stipulated at Art. 35, CISG. According to the Art. 35, there is no directly stipulated concept of non-conformity. But Art. 35 said that the Seller must deliver goods which are of the quantity, quality and description required by the contract and which are contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. Accordingly, the concept of non-conformity contains the conformity of quality, quantity, description, delivery of different goods and documents. Art. 39 does not specify the form of notice required. So parties can require a particular form by agreement. If there is no agreed form of notice, buyer' s notice must be sent by means appropriate in the circumstances. And Art. 39 states that the required notice of lack of conformity must be given to the seller. Notice of defects conveyed by the buyer to an independent third party is not found to have been given by means appropriate in the circumstances. And Art. 39 is subject to the parties' power under Art. 6 to derogate from or vary the effect of any provision of the Convention. When determining which requirement must be satisfied by the buyer is specifying the nature of any lack of conformity, a mixed objective-subjective standard should be applied, which has regard to the respective commercial situation of the buyer and the seller, to any cultural differences, but above all, to the nature of the goods. Also to determine the specificity requirement is to satisfy the purpose of notice of lack of conformity.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.42 no.6
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 2017

This is a comparative and analytical study which comprises of the analysis of the rules of the seller's liability for non-conforming goods of four legal systems under the CISG and the CESL. A purpose of this study is to examine all the rules as to, first, the concept and the nature of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, second, the contents of the seller's duty to deliver the goods in conformity with the contract, third, the time when the goods must be in conformity with the contract and the cases where the seller is exempted from his liability for non-conforming goods. Another purpose is to compare the rules of the CISG with those of the CESL, and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. This is for the purpose of facilitating the systematic development and reform of one jurisdiction by any solution from the other jurisdiction found by the comparative study. In addition, this study provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to use one of those regimes in their contract as a governing law.

• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.71
• /
• pp.37-58
• /
• 2016

CISG Article 50 contains the remedy of price reduction but limits it if the seller has a right to cure. Reduction of price presupposes that the seller delivers non-conforming goods, and that the buyer decides to accept them nevertheless. The remedy of price reduction differs from all other remedies provided in CISG with regard to it effects and to the time-limits. As to the time-limits, unlike Articles 46 and 49, Article 50 does not contain the element within a reasonable time. CISG imposes no period of time for his reducing the price. The buyer's right to declare a reduction of the price is expressly subject to the seller's right to remedy any failure to perform his obligations pursuant to Articles 37 and 48. The problem lies in determining from where to take the figures for comparing the value of the goods contracted and of those delivered. The price level in this place will usually determine his considerations as to resale or repair of the defective goods. The buyer must examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within, as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances. The buyer loses the right to rely on a lack of conformity of the goods if he does not give notice to the seller specifying the nature of the lack of conformity within a reasonable time after he has discovered it or ought to have discovered it.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.71-91
• /
• 2022

The CISG does not stipulate the subject of the burden of proof, and in the arbitral award, the buyer is liable for proof compared to the seller for nonconformity of the product. Without a unified interpretation of the burden of proof of non-contractual goods, confusion of uncertainty may increase if the parties to the sale contract have a dispute due to the trade in goods. It is an important issue to create a unified regulation on this because the courts or arbitration agencies of the Contracting States of the CISG interpret and apply the "seller's obligation to conform to the goods contract" stipulated in this Convention in various ways. In this study, in the case of international Sales of Goods there is a tendency to prefer arbitration through arbitration agencies in the dispute, so the subject of burden of proof is analyzed through arbitration cases applied by CISG as the governing law. Most international commodity trading around the world is regulated by this Convention, but according to the rigid convention regulations, it is analyzed and interpreted through cases where this convention is applied to each country's international arbitration, suggesting the need for a rigid CISG revision.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.27-52
• /
• 2007

As in more than half of the litigated cases, non-conformity of the goods is alleged by the buyer and, hence, the question aries of whether the buyer has given notice within a reasonable time and is thus allowed to rely on the lack of conformity at all, differences in interpreting the meaning of "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG endanger uniformity of international sales law in a core area. This uniform interpretation of the "reasonable time" in Article 39(1) CISG can, however, not be achieved by merely making recommendations to courts and arbitral tribunals that case law from other CISG jurisdictions should be considered. This can at best lead to confusing results. As you know, the determining of reasonable time is depending on the circumstances concerned with the particular case. So the term 'reasonable time' has proven too imprecise due to its flexibility without defined uniform scale to assist the practitioners in a uniform application of Art. 39(1). Therefore I suggested the factors that influenced the determining of the reasonable time. The factors currently influencing whether an Art. 39(1) notice is given within reasonable time in international practice are: any international trade usage and practices, the nature of the remedy chosen by buyer, the nature of the goods delivered and the mode of dealing with the goods.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2013

The purpose of this study compare the difference between purchaser of counterfeit goods and non-purchaser about how self-esteem and conformity influence upon purchase intention of luxury counterfeits goods. Until existing research on purchase intention of luxury counterfeit goods have focused on the consumers' sense of superiority such as conspicuous consumption, hedonic consumption and symbolic consumption. This thesis, however, has focused on individual's psychological variables such as self-esteem and influence of reference group. The results are as follows. The purchaser of counterfeit goods tend to depend on others heavily and show a high purchase intention. On the other hand, the non-purchaser with high self-esteem are less inclined to buy counterfeit goods, and purchase intention level will also be lowed down. This thesis tries to support the assumption that personal psychological difference exist between purchaser and non-purchaser, and this result seems to correspond with the preceding studies.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.201-225
• /
• 1999

This article is focused on the review of price reduction and measuring damages under the CISG together with the law relating to sale of goods in main countries when the goods delivered did not conform with the contract. And also reviewed on the election of remedies for the aggrieved party, that is, which one between the two remedies would provide more compensation for the non-conformity. This article can be summarized as below. 1. Price reduction has its principal significance when the buyer accepts non-conforming goods and plays important role only when the seller is not liable for the non-conformity because the same price reduction formula applies for all circumstances. Of course, the buyer must bear any further damages, such as shutdown expenses and other consequential damages. 2. If the seller is liable for the damages and the price level rises, the buyer normally will claim damages since this approach is much more favorable result than price reduction. 3. In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers no consequential damages, if the price level falls, price reduction would provide more compensation for the non-conformity than would damages and if there is no change in the market level, the allowance for defects in the goods will be normally the same under the price reduction and damages. By the way, In case the seller is liable for the damages and the buyer suffers consequential damages, it is desired that the buyer firstly elect the price reduction and later seeks to claim for consequential losses when the price level falls and unchanged.