• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.3-28
• /
• 2014

This study describes the buyer's remedies regarding defects in title under CISG. Although CISG stipulates the seller's liability for the delivery of conforming goods physically at Art. 35 and legally at Art. 41 and Art. 42 respectively, the buyer's remedies are not distinguished between non-conformity governed by Art. 35 and defects in title governed by Art. 41 and Art. 42. If the seller does not fulfill his obligation under Art. 41 and Art. 42 to deliver goods which are free from third party claims, the buyer should pay attention to which remedies are available under CISG. Under CISG, for defects in title in the delivered goods, the buyer is entitled to require performance in Art. 46 (1) unless he has resorted to a remedy which is inconsistent with this requirement, to declare the contract avoided by strictly limiting the situation in which the failure by the seller to perform his obligation amounts to a fundamental breach of contract in Art. 49, to claim damages in Art. 74, and to suspend the performance of his obligation where it becomes apparent that the seller will not perform a substantial part of his obligation in Art. 71 (1). Unlike Art. 35 non-conformity, the buyer may not require delivery of substitute goods under Art. 46 (2), claim repair under Art. 46 (3), and declare price reduction for title defects under Art. 50.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.83-100
• /
• 2020

This study aimed to provide the most accurate analysis possible regarding the buyer's duty to examine goods and give notice, or the like, of non-conformity to the seller under Belgian law in comparison with the CISG and CESL. Even though Belgium is the capital of the Europe Union, most of its laws remain untranslated in English. Therefore, this study may offer key insights into the specificities of Belgian law, which while being derived from the French Napoleon Code has its own practices coded into its Case Law. It also makes a comparison with the new CESL and CISG in order to evaluate their respective influence on national law and other infructuous attempts to harmonize Belgian law for the internal European market. Evaluating the differences of each system in the spirit of comparative law may be a good basis for the development of laws in each jurisdiction.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.32
• /
• pp.29-56
• /
• 2006

This article primarily concerns the various aspects of the rules to control express terms particularly in standard form which seek to absolve either wholly or in part from the seller's liability for non-conforming goods. It describes and analyzes in detail how English law regulates such terms. In this analysis, it places the following questions; first, whether each jurisdiction treats the seller's liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity as mandatory rules, second, if it does, to what extent it is treated so and third, if not, in what way it controls the seller's attempt to exclude or restrict his liability for non-conformity in quality and quantity. In addition, it attempts to compare the rules under English law with those under Korean law and to evaluate them in light of the discipline of comparative law. In an attempt to evaluate them, it asks the question of whether a solution from one jurisdiction may facilitate the systematic development and reform of another jurisdiction. The evaluation is based upon the idea that the problems of fairness associated with the use of standard terms occur where the customer is unfairly taken by surprise due to his ignorance of the terms, or where even if he knows of the substance of the terms and objects to it, he is met with a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.253-276
• /
• 1999

CISG articles 34 and 37 clearly allow the seller to cure any nonconformity in documents of sale or performance prior to the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable expense. CISG article 48 allows a seller to cure the performance even after the date for delivery if it does not cause the buyer unreasonable delay, unreasonable inconvenience or unreasonable uncertainty of reimbursement by the seller of expenses advanced by the buyer. The wording any failure to perform is broad enough to include a delay. The seller's right to cure relates to all his obligations. The seller may remedy 'any failure to perform his obligations'. This language is broad enough to include a defect in documents. In some cases the fact that the seller is able and willing to remedy the non-conformity of the goods without inconvenience to the buyer, may mean that there would be no fundamental breach unless the seller failed to remedy the non-conformity within an appropriate time. It cannot generally be said what unreasonable inconvenience means. This can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. The seller must bear the costs involved in remedying a failure to perform. The curing of a failure to perform may have influence on the amount of the damage claimed. Insofar as the seller has the right to cure, the buyer is in that case obliged to accept the cure. If he refuses to do so, he can neither avoid the contract nor declare a reduction in price. This rule clearly shows the underlying concept of the CISG, to keep to the contract, if possible. Should the buyer requires delivery of substitute goods and the seller offers repair, it depends on the expense each case. The buyer must receive the request or notice by the seller. The relationship between the seller's right to cure and the buyer's right to avoid the contract is unclear. The buyer's right to avoid the contract should not nullify the seller's right to cure if the offer is reasonable. In addition, whether a breach is fundamental should be decided in the right of the seller's offer to cure.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.243-257
• /
• 2006

This study is to introduce the Chinese Contract Law against non-performance of the contract and to solve the wide range of problems involving to executing the trading contract. The parties' liability for the period of performance, the place of performance, the failure to deliver conforming goods together with it's nature of the lack of conformity, and the methods of compensation against damages and the force majeure clauses application. Those issues affect directly to commercial transactions in international business. The focus is more on the interrelationship of private individuals in its trade and on aiming to remove the legal obstacles from the Chinese Contract Law to freely flow of international trade. Reference may include foreign corrupt practices, Conventions on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods and Laws of England, France, and Japan. This study has brought the efforts of these issues in the full spectrum of performance and with concentrations on effectiveness to avoid the different viewpoints of the general principles of CISG and commercial practice founded pre-eminently. This study, in presenting the legal framework, will contribute to a better understanding of the purpose of rules of Chinese Contract -Law as they interact to the benefit of the parties involved in international trade transactions. The writer believes that a problem-oriented approach and the concentration as outlined above would offer a different perspective for law faculty teaching in this area and hope that this study can be sufficiently diverse to satisfy many of those views.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.31-55
• /
• 2009

This study attempts to provide a comparative overview of the liability systems Korean law and the PELS adopt, that is, the approaches taken by Korean law and the PELS to deal with various irregularities of contractual performance. In addition, it examines in a comparative way the questions of what is the position of the seller's liability for his delivery of defective goods under the chosen liability system and what is the legal nature of the seller's liability. The study finds that the dual liability system taken by Korean law has caused some complexities as to the matter of which liability is applicable in some borderline cases. The problem in such complexities is originated in that the remedies available and the limitation period applicable are differentiated in accordance with one's different categorization among three types of default under the general liability and defective performance under the seller's guarantee liability. In this light, the study argues that the unified liability system under the PELS is superior because its concept of non-performance embraces in a unitary manner all the aspects of default including defects in quality, quantity and title. In addition, it finds that Korean law has suffered endless debates on the question of what are the true contents of the same remedies of rescission and damages provided under the seller's guarantee liability as under the general liability. The debates have been come along on the basis of the traditional presumption among some of civil law jurisdictions that two liabilities be different in terms of not only their legal nature but also their contents of remedies. The study argues that the problem may be circumvented, first, by another way of thinking that the unified liability in Korean law is inferred from the specification of the identical remedies for both the general liability and the seller's guarantee liability under the KCC, second, by the preposition that the requirement of fault be depended upon what remedy the buyer seeks to claim rather than what liability he does to rely on.

• 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.