• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.1-22
• /
• 2016

This study primarily concerns the cases recently held as to the formation of contract under the CISG. In order to put forward the most plausible direction to interpret the rules on the formation of contract under the CISG, it particularly deals with the followings. First, it scrutinizes the rules on the formation of contract, focusing on the requirements of offer and acceptance, the time when such offer and acceptance become effective, the issues on the battle of forms. Second, it introduces two recent interesting cases regarding the formation of contract and provides legal and practical advice to the contracting parties when they intend to conclude a contract under the CISG as a governing law. The followings are practical points that the parties should consider when they enter into contract. First, as any signature or intial made in the offer could be regarded as an acceptance, the parties are required to clarify the meaning of such signature or initials before the conclusion of contract. Second, it is not necessarily required one's signature for an offer to become effective but his name. Third, standard terms cannot be incorporated into the contract simply by reference to web-page or other documents. In order for such terms to be incorporated, it may be necessary to enclose them in the offer or to bring the other party's attention to them. Forth, one should remember that an acceptance by act become effective not when such act is complete, but when it is performed.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.5
• /
• pp.168-178
• /
• 2015

Besides the imposition of taxes and mandatory actions, why in a special rules needed in the contract between state and civilians. The contract between the state and civilian are unlike with civilian's contract in the comparable effect, even if the effect of the agreement and the parties bear the structural nature of the self-other agreement between private economic actors and there are a variety of different specificity. In other words, the agents of the contract with the state government for control of opportunistic behavior are very specific rules exist. Through this, even if it is the relationship between state and non-mandatory private realms of the contract, even if the area forced me to the fact that the difference can be confirmed. Representative of the government of the country to understand the delegate decisions and judgments and other opportunistic behavior always seem to exist on the possibility of such devices for the pre-control needed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.25
• /
• pp.41-71
• /
• 2005

"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.

• 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 Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.33-43
• /
• 2014

Goods, services and construction works needed by central government entities, local government entities, and other public institutions are procured with national budget. For efficient budget execution, Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party (hereinafter "State Contract Act") provides for the criteria for determining estimated price. Sub-paragraph 2 of the paragraph provides for the "determination of estimated price by cost calculation". On this legal basis, pricing criteria for the determination of estimated price, based on the project purpose, are announced by responsible authorities. This study analyzes the pricing criteria for technology services and proposes a price calculation methodology that can ensure transparency, as a practical improvement for more rational and efficient budget execution in the public sector.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute Of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.41-47
• /
• 2007

The selection of the reasonable project delivery system (PDS) is crucial for a successful performance of a project, which means to achieve project objectives. Furthermore, the project performance has been tightly related to the selection of PDS appropriate to pertinent project characteristics. In this context, the ministry of finance and economy of Korea launched two new project delivery systems called "Best Value Contract (Design-Bid-Build)" and "Bridging Contract (Design-Build)" in October of 2007 by revising enforcement ordinances of "Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party". For efficient operation of the new project delivery systems, this paper suggested a PDS selection model which supports decision making of the reasonable PDS for a pertinent project by assessing characteristics of the public construction projects, both quantitatively and qualitatively. In addition, a PDS performance evaluation model was proposed in order to get feedback on the result of the PDS selection and the operation for the succeeding project. The standard models suggested in this paper might be used as a tool to support the decision making of the public organizations.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.21 no.1
• /
• pp.169-189
• /
• 2006

In 2007, KSLV(Korea Small Launching Vehicle) that we made at Goheung National Space Center is going to launch and promotes of our space exploration systematically and 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' was enter into force. 'Space Exploration Promotion Act' article 3, section 1, as is prescribing "Korean government keeps the space treaties contracted with other countries and international organizations and pursues after peaceful uses of outer space." The representative international treaties are Outer Space Treaty (1967) and Liability Convention (1972) etc. In Liability convention article 2, "A launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space object on the surface of the earth or to aircraft in flight. The important content of the art. 2 is the responsible entity is the 'State' not the 'Company'. According by Korean Space Exploration Act art. 14, person who launches space objects according to art. 8 and art. 11 must bear the liability for damages owing to space accidents of the space objects. Could Korean government apply the Products Liability Act which is enter into force from July 1, 2002 to space launching person? And what is the contact type between Korea Aerospace Research Institute(KARl) and Russia manufacturer. Is that a Co-Development contract or Licence Product contract? And there is no exemption clause to waive the Russia manufacturer's liability which we could find it from other similar contract condition. If there is no exemption clause to the Russia manufacturer, could we apply the Korean Products Liability Act to Russia one? The most important legal point is whether we could apply the Korean Products Liability Act to the main component company. According by the art. 17 of the contract between KARl and the company, KARl already apply the Products Liability Act to the main component company. For reference, we need to examine the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, this case is that long distance electricity communication satellite of Western Union Telegraph company possessions fails on track entry. In Western Union's insurance company supplied to Western Union with insurance of $ 105 millions, which has the satellite regard as entirely damage. Five insurance companies -Appalachian insurance company, Commonwealth insurance company, Industrial Indemnity, Mutual Marine Office, Northbrook Excess & Surplus insurance company- went to court against McDonnell Douglases, Morton Thiokol and Hitco company to inquire for fault and strict liability of product. By the Appalachian Insurance co. v. McDonnell Douglas case, KARl should waiver the main component's product liability burden. And we could study the possibility of the adapt 'Government Contractor Defense' theory to the main component company.

• Korean Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.136-145
• /
• 2008

Recently the Ministry of Finance and Economy of Korea launched two new project delivery systems called "Best Value Contract (Design-Bid-Build)" and "Bridging Contract (Design-Build)" in October of 2007 by revising enforcement ordinances of "Act on Contracts to Which the State is a Party". These project delivery systems require the bidders to submit technical proposal adjusted to the project characteristics and objectives for selecting the contractor by evaluating technical proposals. This research aimed to suggest guideline to effectively operate the project delivery systems described above. To reach the goal of the research, the framework of the operation model was developed, which includes the four categories: the standard bidding process, the technical proposal requirements, the technical proposal evaluation criteria, and the award methods. The contents of the four categories above were fulfilled throughout conferring with the advisory experts. In particular, the award methods, which are the important decision-making factor in the perspective of the owner, consist of four types: Low Bid-Fully Qualified, Weighted Criteria, Adjusted Bid, and Adjusted Score. The quantitative features and application criteria of these four types of award methods were suggested throughout the simulation using the virtual case.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.