Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography
Search the entire CISG Database (case data + other data)

CISG CASE PRESENTATION

Republic of Korea 14 October 2010 Seoul High Court (Cotton seed case)
[Cite as: http://cisgw3.law.pace.edu/cases/101014k3.html]

Primary source(s) of information for case presentation: Case abstract

Case Table of Contents


Case identification

DATE OF DECISION: 20101014 (14 October 2010)

JURISDICTION: Republic of Korea

TRIBUNAL: Seoul High Court

JUDGE(S): Unavailable

CASE NUMBER/DOCKET NUMBER: 2010Na29609

CASE NAME: Unavailable

CASE HISTORY: 1st instance Seoul Central District Court [2009Gahap79069]

SELLER'S COUNTRY: Australia

BUYER'S COUNTRY: Korea

GOODS INVOLVED: Cotton seed


UNCITRAL case abstract

KOREA: Seoul High Court 14 October 2010

Case law on UNCITRAL texts [A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/134],
CLOUT abstract no. 1278

Reproduced with permission of UNCITRAL

Abstract prepared by Haemin Lee, National Correspondent

The seller, an Australian company, entered into a contract with the defendant, a Korean company, for the export of cotton seeds. The defendant accordingly opened a letter of credit (“L/C”) in favour of the plaintiff. However, the L/C included conditions not contemplated in the contract, which the defendant refused to remove despite the plaintiff’s requests. The plaintiff declared the contract avoided and claimed for the damages caused by the defendant’s breach.

Noting that under Articles 53 and 54 CISG, the defendant is obliged to pay for the goods received from the plaintiff in compliance with the formalities required by the contract, the court ruled that the defendant’s failure to open the L/C in a manner conforming to the plaintiff’s contractual terms constituted “a fundamental breach of contract”, justifying the plaintiff’s declaration of avoidance pursuant to Article 64(1)(a) CISG. But even had there been no “fundamental breach”, the defendant’s refusal to honor the plaintiff’s request for revision of the L/C, despite the plaintiff’s granting of additional time to do so, created valid grounds for avoidance under Article 64(1)(b) CISG. The court thus found in favor of the plaintiff.

Go to Case Table of Contents

Classification of issues present

APPLICATION OF CISG: Yes

APPLICABLE CISG PROVISIONS AND ISSUES

Key CISG provisions at issue: Articles 53 ; 54 ; 64(1)(a) and 64(1)(b)

Classification of issues using UNCITRAL classification code numbers:

53A [Obligation to pay price of goods];

53B [Obligation to take delivery of goods];

64A1 [Fundamental breach of contract];

64A2 [Buyer does not pay or take delivery]

Descriptors: Avoidance; Conformity of goods; Fundamental breach; Letter of Credit

Go to Case Table of Contents

Editorial remarks

Go to Case Table of Contents

Citations to other abstracts, case texts and commentaries

CITATIONS TO OTHER ABSTRACTS OF DECISION

Unavailable

CITATIONS TO TEXT OF DECISION

Original language (Korean): Unavailable

Translation: Unavailable

CITATIONS TO COMMENTS ON DECISION

Unavailable

Go to Case Table of Contents
Pace Law School Institute of International Commercial Law - Last updated November 8, 2013
Comments/Contributions
Go to Database Directory || Go to CISG Table of Contents || Go to Case Search Form || Go to Bibliography