지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article compares the provIsIOns of CISG, UNIDROIT Principles<Principles} and PECL that related to Force Majeure and Clausula rebus Sic Stantibus. Regarding Force majeure, three norms, mentioned above, have similar provisions. Although the expression of relevant provisions of them are, more or less, different, the interpretation of them are analogous to each other except the effect of non-receipt of notice of impediments.
Concerning the Doctrine of Change of Circumstances, CISG does not expressly provide the doctrine. In contrast to CISG's express failure to address the doctrine, Principles and PECL expressly provide the doctrine of the change of circumstances. Even though the title of the provision is different between two norms, the requirement and the legal effect are almost same. If the requirements of the doctrine of change of circumstances are met, a disadvantaged party has a right to request renegotiations. If the parties cannot reach agreement, either party may resort to the court. The court terminate or adapt the contract to restoring equilibrium of the contract if it finds hardship.
The result of failure of CISG to address the doctrine of change of circumstance goes to the debate whether CISG covers the. doctrine or not. Academics have attempted to ascertain the scope of CISG's article 79 which grants exemption from performance of a party's obligation when the requirements under Article 79 are met. Although there is no consensus on the issue, the prevailing opinion of the courts and scholars is that the term "impediments" as contained Article 79 does not extend so far as to encompass hardship. The base of majority opinion mainly lies on the legislative history of CISG which implies Article 79 is limited to cases involving an greater obstacle to performance than that which traditionally constitutes hardship. Regarding the invocation of the Principles as a mechanism by which to fill gaps in CISG on this matter, majority opinion is sceptical. To solve this problem, we should review the Article 7 of CISG. Under Article 7 of CISG, the final applicable law is domestic law provision.
The one thing that we should not forget is that the scope of application of these three norms is different. CISG is for sales contract in contrast to the others which cover all kind of contract.
Concerning the Doctrine of Change of Circumstances, CISG does not expressly provide the doctrine. In contrast to CISG's express failure to address the doctrine, Principles and PECL expressly provide the doctrine of the change of circumstances. Even though the title of the provision is different between two norms, the requirement and the legal effect are almost same. If the requirements of the doctrine of change of circumstances are met, a disadvantaged party has a right to request renegotiations. If the parties cannot reach agreement, either party may resort to the court. The court terminate or adapt the contract to restoring equilibrium of the contract if it finds hardship.
The result of failure of CISG to address the doctrine of change of circumstance goes to the debate whether CISG covers the. doctrine or not. Academics have attempted to ascertain the scope of CISG's article 79 which grants exemption from performance of a party's obligation when the requirements under Article 79 are met. Although there is no consensus on the issue, the prevailing opinion of the courts and scholars is that the term "impediments" as contained Article 79 does not extend so far as to encompass hardship. The base of majority opinion mainly lies on the legislative history of CISG which implies Article 79 is limited to cases involving an greater obstacle to performance than that which traditionally constitutes hardship. Regarding the invocation of the Principles as a mechanism by which to fill gaps in CISG on this matter, majority opinion is sceptical. To solve this problem, we should review the Article 7 of CISG. Under Article 7 of CISG, the final applicable law is domestic law provision.
The one thing that we should not forget is that the scope of application of these three norms is different. CISG is for sales contract in contrast to the others which cover all kind of contract.
목차
서언
국제물품매매협약에 있어서의 면책
UNIDROIT 상사계약에 관한 원칙
유럽계약법원칙
국제물품매매협약 하에서 ‘hardship‘의 인정여부
결언
參考文獻
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
CISG의 적용범위에 관한 법적 기준과 판결례에 관한 고찰
경영법률
2013 .01
-
미국법원의 판례를 통한 CISG 적용상의 함의
통상정보연구
2016 .12
-
비엔나협약상 채무불이행으로 인한 손해배상책임의 면책
기업법연구
2005 .03
-
CISG의 흠결보충
외법논집
2011 .01
-
CISG 제78조(延滯利子 請求權)에 대한 考察
무역상무연구
2006 .08
-
국제물품매매협약(CISG) 제79조(면책 ) 와 관련한 몇 가지 쟁점
무역상무연구
2015 .08
-
CISG 제4조에서 적용배제사안과 국내법의 적용 : 한·중계약법 비교를 중심으로
통상정보연구
2017 .09
-
한국 CISG 가입 10주년 회고와 전망
중재연구
2015 .01
-
유엔국제물품매매법(CISG)상의 계약성립 규정과 그 보충가능성에 관한 검토 - 국제상사계약원칙(PICC) 및 계약법원칙(PECL)과의 비교를 통해 -
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
免責法理에 관한 比較法的 硏究 : CISG를 中心으로
무역학회지
2001 .06
-
CISG 제79조에서 면책요건과 효과에 관한 연구
무역연구
2010 .01
-
국제물품매매협약을 적용함에 있어서 몇 가지 문제점(계약의 성립 및 해제 등) - 서울 고법 2012.7.19.선고 2012나59871판결을 중심으로 -
재산법연구
2015 .01
-
CISG적용 국제물품매매에서 국내 강행법분쟁에 관한 연구- 물품불일치 분쟁사건 판례를 중심으로 -
중재연구
2009 .01
-
CISG 제79조의 면책규정에 관한 각국 판례의 동향
法學論文集
2016 .01
-
국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(CISG)의 적용상의 통일성에 관한 최근 미국판례의 태도와 그 개선책에 관한 고찰
법학연구
2006 .08
-
The Present and Future Role of the CISG in Korea
동아법학
2010 .08
-
무역거래에서 국제물품매매계약에 관한 유엔협약(CISG)의 적용범위로서 당사자자치의 원칙 및 그 한계에 대한 고찰
통상법률
2012 .06
-
CISG의 적용배제(Opt-Out)에 관한 판단기준 : 배제합의에 있어서 당사자의사의 해석
국제사법연구
2017 .12
-
CISG에서 청약에 관한 연구
한국무역학회 세미나 및 토론회
2010 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-013558436