미국통일상법전(UCC) §2-207조 개정의 의미-계약의 성립 및 그 조건확정을 중심으로-

안강현 국제거래법학회 2010 國際去來法硏究 Vol.19 No.2

The Uniform Commercial Code(hereinafter referred to as the ‘UCC’) had significantly modified its stance concerning the formation of the contract and the determination of terms of the contract by the revision in 2003. Prior to such revision, the UCC had regulated both the formation of the contract and the determination of terms in the same §2-207, in that if the expression of acceptance has the additional terms to the offer, the UCC had classified into two cases from the criteria whether or not the parties are both merchants. In case the parties are both merchants, such additional terms have incorporated into the terms of the contract provided it has not materially altered the terms of the offer, while either in case where not all the parties are merchants or in case where there are material alteration, such additional terms have been regarded as the simple proposals for addition to the contract, further regulating that in a contract-byconduct situation, the terms of the contract shall be complemented according to the UCC except for the written agreement. On the contrary, the revised UCC has ruled the formation of the contract in the UCC §2-206, separately from the determination of the terms of contract in the UCC §2-207, in that the revised UCC has maintained the previous stance on the abolishment of the mirror image rule to facilitate the formation of the contract,while it has adopted the single unified standard of the knock-out rule to fix the terms of the contract, by repudiating the diversified rules in the previous UCC. This paper has scrutinized the problems likely to arise from the revision of the UCC by comparing the prior clauses with the revised ones, along with reviewing the relevant international regulations such as CISG, PICC as well as PECL. 미국통일상법전은 계약의 성립과 성립된 계약조건의 확정 문제에 관하여 2003년 개정을통하여 그 입장을 크게 변경하였다. 즉, 개정 전에는 계약의 성립문제와 내용확정 문제를 §2-207조에 같이 담아 규율하면서승낙의 의사표시에 청약조건에 대한 추가적 조건이 포함된 경우 계약당사자가 모두 상인인경우와 그렇지 않은 경우로 구분하여 계약당사자가 모두 상인인 경우에는 그 추가적 조건이 청약조건을 중대하게 변경하는 등의 예외적인 사유가 없는 한 계약의 내용이 되도록 하고, 계약당사자의 일부가 비상인인 경우나 위의 예외적인 사유가 있는 경우에는 단순한 제안으로 취급하도록 규정하는 한편 행위에 의한 계약성립의 경우에 그 내용은 당사자의 서면합의 외에는 미국통일상법전에 따라 보충하도록 규정하였다. 그러나 개정된 미국통일상법전은 계약의 성립문제는 미국통일상법전 §2-206조에, 계약내용의 확정문제는 §2-207조에 각각 나누어 규정하면서 계약성립을 용이하게 하기 위한mirror image rule의 폐기기조는 개정 전의 입장을 대체적으로 유지하되, 계약내용의 확정기준에 대하여는 개정 전의 다양한 기준을 폐기하고 knock-out rule이라는 단일한 기준을통일적으로 적용하기로 하였다. 이 논문에서는 미국통일상법전의 위와 같은 입장변경과 관련하여 개정 전후의 조문을 비교하면서 개정조문이 가질 수 있는 문제점에 대하여 검토하였다. 이를 행함에 있어서 CISG 나 PICC 및 PECL 등과 같은 국제규범의 관련규정들에 대한 검토도 함께 하였다.

계약의 서식분쟁(Battle of Forms)에 관한 소고

최창렬 국제거래법학회 2011 國際去來法硏究 Vol.20 No.2

It is a common rule in the continental legal system or the Anglo-American legal system that if a contract is constituted, an offer and its acceptance should be completely agreed, which is referred to as a Mirror-image Rule. However, looking at the process of a contract entered into in today’s commercial practices, contract parties often deal with tractions using contract forms containing pre-prepared purchase orders, sales acknowledgements, and invoices etc. If any mismatch of the content in any contract forms occurs between parties thereto, a dispute arises in regard with whether the contract is established, how the contract is confirmed,which is mainly called battle of forms. The traditional theory of contract sees that an offer and its acceptance are not fully accorded if any battle of forms happens,so the contract should be deemed as not being consummated. And the decision of the contract content And the confirmation of the contract content will be based on the Last-shot Rule applying the terms and conditions presented at last. In general, however, the exact match of the content of an offer and its acceptance including the background of the contract is rare, if, after entering into the contract implementation process of such a contract, when either party deems the relevant contract unfavorable to him with the disagreement out with the offer he wants to get the approval of discrepancy, thrust into a dispute in so Knock-out-Rule is imperative to recognize mitigating the Mirror-Image Rule. For the review of the resolution for the battle of forms in international sale contracts about articles, this article explored around United National Convention on Contracts for the international Sale of Goods (CISG), Principles of International Commercial Contract 2004(PICC), Principles of European Contract Law(PECL),Uniform Commercial Code(UCC), but drawing attention as a model for international contract law. Based on that, the article examined the interpretation direction of CISG accepted and effected as a domestic law, and the future revision orientation of our Civil Code. As a result, this article investigated how to resolve any dispute on battle of forms by the recognition of Knock-out Rule in a different way based on Last-shot Rule. And now even in discussing the revision of the Civil Code, the article proposed to introduce Knock-out Rule about Standard terms Contract 계약이 성립하려면 청약과 승낙은 완전하게 일치하여야 한다는 것이 대륙법계나 영미법계의 공통된 원칙이고 이를 경상의 원칙(Mirror-image Rule)이라고 한다. 그런데 오늘날상거래에서 계약이 체결되는 과정을 보면 계약당사자는 미리 준비된 매수주문서(purchase order), 매도확약서(sales acknowledgement), 송장(invoice)들 계약조건이 포함된 계약서식을 사용하여 거래하는 경우가 많다. 당사자 사이에 계약서식의 내용에 일치하지 않는 부분이 발생하는 경우에 계약의 성립여부와 계약의 내용확정과 관련한 분쟁이 발생하고 이를국제물품매매계약에서 주로 書式의 紛爭(battle of forms)이라고 한다. 전통적인 계약이론에서는 서식의 분쟁이 발생하면 청약과 승낙은 완전하게 합치하지 않은 것이므로 경상의 원칙에 따라 계약이 성립하지 않은 것으로 보아야 한다. 그리고 그 계약내용의 확정은 마지막으로 제시된 계약조건으로 하는 최후발포이론(Last-shot Rule)에의하게 된다. 그러나 일반적으로 청약과 승낙의 내용이 계약서의 이면을 포함하여 완전히일치하는 경우는 드물고, 계약이 이행과정에 들어간 이후에 당해 계약이 자기에게 불리하다고 판단될 때 청약과 승낙의 불일치를 끌어내고자 청약과 승낙의 불일치를 끌어내어 계약관계로부터 탈피하고자 하는 시도로 분쟁을 유도하는 경우도 있으므로 경상의 원칙을 완화하여 충돌제거이론(Knock-out Rule)을 인정할 필요성이 제기되고 있다. 국제간의 물품매매계약에서의 서식분쟁에 해결방법에 관한 검토를 위하여 국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약(United National Convention on Contracts for the international Sale of Goods: CISG) 및 국제상사계약법 원칙(Unidroit Principles of International Commercial Contract 2004: PICC)과 유럽계약법원칙(Principles of European Contract Law: PECL) 미국의 국내법이지만 국제계약법의 모델로서 주목받고 있는 미국통일상법전(Uniform Commercial Code: UCC)을 중심으로 검토해 보았다. 이를 바탕으로 국내법으로 수용되어 효력이 발생한 CISG의 해석방향과 향후 우리 민법의 개정방향을 검토하였다. 그 결과 Last-shot Rule을 기본으로 하되 다양한 방식으로Knock-out Rule을 인정하여 서식분쟁을 해결하는 방법을 검토하였다. 그리고 현재 논의되는 민법의 개정에 있어서도 약관을 사용한 계약에서 서식분쟁에 관하여 Knock-out Rule 을 도입하는 방안을 제시하였다.

CISG상 서식전쟁의 해결에 관한 해석론

김효정 국제거래법학회 2018 國際去來法硏究 Vol.27 No.1

매도인과 매수인 간에 계약의 협상과정에서 교환된 약관(standard terms)이 충돌하는 경우를 ‘서식전쟁(battle of the forms)’이라고 한다. CISG는 서식전쟁에 관한 구체적인 규정을두고 있지 않으므로 그 해결에 대하여 다양한 견해들이 대립하고 있으며, 각국 법원의 해석도 일치되지 않고 있는 실정이다. CISG상 서식전쟁의 해결방안으로 제시되고 있는 견해들은 CISG 제19조의 적용에 따른 최후발포이론에 의한 해결을 지지하는 견해(제1설), CISG 제19조의 묵시적 배제를 주장하는 견해(제2설), 계약의 성립에 대해서만 CISG 제19 조를 적용하는 견해(제3설), 국내법에 의한 해결을 주장하는 견해(제4설), CISG 제7조 제2 항을 근거로 충돌제거이론에 의한 해결을 주장하는 견해(제5설) 등 다섯 가지로 범주화할수 있다. 위와 같은 견해 대립은 서식전쟁에서 변경을 가한 승낙에 관한 규정인 CISG 제19조를적용할 것인지에 대한 입장의 차이에서부터 비롯된다. 서식전쟁은 계약의 성립 측면에서보면 청약과 승낙의 불일치로 인하여 발생하는 것으로 변경을 가한 승낙의 문제와 관련되나, 통상의 청약과 승낙에 의한 계약의 경우에는 양 당사자가 그 불일치를 인식하고 있는반면, 서식전쟁은 양 당사자가 그 불일치에 대한 인식이 없는 것이 일반적이라는 점을 고려할 때, 통상의 청약과 승낙에 의한 계약의 경우와는 달리 취급하여야 한다. 따라서 CISG 제19조는 통상의 청약과 승낙에 의한 계약의 경우, 즉 당사자들이 개별적으로 협상을 하는주요거래조건(dickered terms)의 충돌에만 적용되어야 하며, 약관(standard terms)의 충돌 문제인 서식전쟁에 적용되어서는 아니 된다. PICC 및 PECL이 통상의 청약과 승낙에 의한계약의 경우에는 최후발포이론을 취하는 반면, 서식전쟁의 경우에는 충돌제거이론을 취하고 있는 것은 서식전쟁의 위와 같은 특수성을 인정하고 있기 때문이다. 이러한 점에서 서식전쟁을 CISG상 공백으로 보지 않고 CISG 제19조를 적용하여 해결하고자 하는 견해인 제1설 및 제2설, 제3설은 타당하지 않다. 제1설은 당사자의 의사와는 관계없이 계약의 이행행위를 최후에 송부된 약관에 대한 절대적인 동의로 보고 있으나, CISG 제8조의 해석원칙을 적용하여 볼 때 계약의 이행행위를 약관의 충돌에도 불구하고 계약을성립시키고자 하는 의도로 해석할 수는 있어도 자신의 약관을 부정하는 동시에 자신이 인식하지 못한 충돌하는 조건을 포함한 상대방의 약관에 동의하는 것으로는 해석할 수 없다. 한편 제2설 및 제3설이 계약의 이행행위 전후로 나누어 논리적으로 상반된 전제를 하고 있는 CISG 제19조 및 충돌제거이론을 각각 적용하는 것은 타당하지 않다. 서식전쟁은 계약의 성립 문제로서 CISG의 적용범위에 포함되나 CISG에서 명시적으로 해결되지 아니하는 공백(gap)이다. 따라서 서식전쟁을 계약의 유효성 문제로 보고 CISG의적용범위에 포함되지 아니하는 것으로 보는 제4설도 타당하지 않다. 결국 서식전쟁은 제5설에서 주장하는 바와 같이 CISG 제7조 제2항이 규정한 ‘CISG에의하여 규율되는 사항으로서 CISG에서 명시적으로 해결되지 아니하는 문제’로서 ‘CISG가기초하는 일반원칙’에 의하여 충돌제거이론을 적용하여 해결하여야 한다. 이러한 점에서CISG 제2편이 기초하고 있는 일반원칙에 의하면 CISG 제14조에서 추론할 수 있는 바와같이 물품, 수량, 대금 조건의 합의가 있고 당사자들의 계약에의 합의가 충분히 확정적이 ... The conflicts of the standard terms exchanged between the buyer and the seller in the process of contract negotiations would ultimately be induced to the issues of the so-called “the battle of the forms”. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) does not contain any specific rules on the battle of the forms. As a result, there have been a wide diversity of interpretations suggested by the courts’ decisions and commentators’ views as to the battle of the forms under the CISG. We could possibly classify and categorize these positions into at least five differing approaches or perspectives to resolving the battle of the forms under the CISG, i.e. (1) the view suggesting that the battle of the forms would be resolved by last-shot rule on the basis of applying Article 19 of the CISG (the first view), (2) the view asserting that the implicit exclusion of Article 19 of the CISG would be justified(the second view), (3) the view insisting that the application of Article 19 of the CISG shall only be applied to the issue of formation of the contract(the third view), (4) the view propounding that the regulations as to the battle of the forms shall be sought and found in the applicable domestic law(the fourth view), (5) the view insisting that the battle of the forms would be understood to be a gap in the CISG, thus to be resolved by the application of the general principles pursuant to Article 7(2) of the CISG(the fifth view). The above controversies have come to arise from the divergent understanding of the application of Article 19 of the CISG concerning the modified acceptance of the battle of the forms. The battle of the forms would arguably be related to the modified acceptance with regard to formation of the contract, however it has to be dealt with separately from the general formation of the contract by the offer and the acceptance. While the parties of the contract in the course of general formation of the contract by the offer and acceptance usually recognize the discrepancies between the offer and the acceptance, the parties of the contract under the circumstances of battle of the forms would hardly know the existence of the conflicting standard terms. Therefore, Article 19 of the CISG shall apply only to the conflicts of the dickered terms on which the parties negotiate individually, but it shall not apply to the conflicts of the standard terms. According to the distinctive nature of the battle of the forms as above mentioned, the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts(PICC), and the Principles of European Contract Law(PECL) are adopting the “last-shot rule” to the general formation of the offer and the acceptance while adopting the “knock-out rule” to the battle of the forms. On this ground, the first and the second view as well as the third view all of which do not recognize the gap of the CISG, and thus seek to resolve the battle of the forms by applying Article 19 of the CISG would hardly be justified. Under the first view, the act of performance will always serve as an unconditional assent to the last form irrespective of the parties’ intent. However, in light of the interpretive norms in Article 8 of the CISG, it might be possible to interpret an act of performance as the parties’ intent to conclude a contract notwithstanding the conflict of the standard terms. But it might be unjustified to interpret an act of performance to be in conformity with the other party’s unknown conflicting terms, thus resulting in negating or denying one’s previous terms. Furthermore the second view and the third view would be unsubstantiated since these views acknowledge in appling both Article 19 of the CISG and the knock-out rule respectively and independently, which are based on the contrary premises, to the contract in dispute depending on the timing of the performance. The battle of the forms regarding to the issue of formation of the contrac...

국제물품매매계약의 성립에 관한 서식분쟁 해결의 타당한 접근법

우광명(Kwang-myung Woo),노현수(Hyun-soo Roh) 한국국제상학회 2008 國際商學 Vol.23 No.2

  Standard form contracts have been commonly used in international commercial transactions since at least the late nineteenth century. In a typical commercial transaction for the sale of goods, the transaction is not confined to one standard form contract. The battle of forms that result from the exchange of standard form contracts. There are two main questions that have to be solved in the battle of forms. That is, Is there a contract? and If there is, what are the terms of the contract?<BR>  There are many methods to solve in the battle of forms transactions, including mirror image rule, first shot doctrine, last shot doctrine, CISG and knock-out rule, etc. When dispute arise on the formation of contract in the International sale of goods, some courts apply the last shot rule, some the knock-out rule and some fabricate alternative solutions. The different solutions bring uncertainty in international transactions whereby decisions depend on the judge handling the particular case.<BR>  In recent, the UNIDROIT Principle and PECL have explicit provisions that deal with the issue of battle of forms. Both incorporate the knock-out rule in the determining the terms of the contract. Therefore, I suggest that a proper approach to resolve the battle of the forms is the knock-out rule and code"s gap-fillers applying.

국제계약법 원칙상의 변경된 승낙

朴賢晶(박현정) 동아대학교 법학연구소 2019 國際去來와 法 Vol.- No.27

In commercial dealings it often happens that the offeree, while signifying to the offeror its intention to accept the offer (“acknowledgement of order”), nevertheless includes in its declaration terms additional to or different from those of the offer. Most principles of international contract law provides that such a purported acceptance is as a rule to be considered a rejection of the offer and that it amounts to a counter-offer by the offeree, which the offeror may or may not accept either expressly or impliedly, e.g. by an act of performance. The principle according to which the acceptance must be the mirror image of the offer implies that even unimportant differences between the offer and the acceptance permit either party at a later stage to question the existence of the contract. In order to avoid such a result, which a party may well seek merely because market conditions have changed unfavourably, CISG, PICC or PECL provides for an exception to the general rule laid down in mirror image rule by stating that if the additional or modified terms contained in the acceptance do not “materially” alter the terms of the offer, the contract is concluded with those modifications unless the offeror objects without undue delay. What amounts to a “material” modification cannot be determined in the abstract but will depend on the circumstances of each case. Additional or different terms relating to the price or mode of payment, place and time of performance of a non-monetary obligation, the extent of one party’s liability to the other or the settlement of disputes, will normally, but need not necessarily, constitute a material modification of the offer. An important factor to be taken into account in this respect is whether the additional or different terms are commonly used in the trade sector concerned and therefore do not come as a surprise to the offeror.

미국법상 약관제시요건 및 사후조항의 효력에 관한 연구

김상찬 ( Sang Chan Kim ) 제주대학교 법과정책연구원 2014 法과 政策 Vol.20 No.1

The role of contract terms in modern society has been increasingly important as it`s decisive in business relations. Particularly in line with growing e-commerce accompanied by mass production, mass transaction and mass consumption, transaction under contract terms has been playing a critical role in consumer life more than ever. From business standpoint, standardized contract terms available in advance will enable them to do contract risk management in efficient way and for the consumer which is also one of the contract parties, it`s inevitable to make use of the contract terms provided by the company because it`s almost impossible for them to exchange the contract after reviewing every terms of the contract in detail. Given such important role, how to regulate the contract law to allow the contract terms to do its role appropriately has been emerged as the problem to be dealt with. However it would never be easy practically to specify the requirements for contract terms in civil law, considering the reality. Moreover since there`s no baseline on when, where and how contract terms shall be suggested which are acceptable to everyone, disputes on requirements for suggesting contract terms and the validity of ex post factor clause can hardly be avoided, in fact. This paper is intended to review the theory and legislation on requirements for suggesting the contract terms in the United States. After reviewing the Mirror Image Rule which has made commitment to distributing the contract terms in the United States and blanket assent theory on validation thereof from the standpoint of the contract party, regulation of contract terms and validation according to the Part II, Uniform Commercial Code was also evaluated, which was then followed by viewing the debate on the principle of software contract law for regulating the contract terms in e-commerce. The theory and legislation on requirements for contract terms in the United States would possibly imply the guideline in discussing the same in Korea as well as the help in solving the disputes with regard to requirements for contract terms and the validation of ex post factor clause.

국제물품매매계약에 관한 UN협약(CISG)상 계약의 성립에 관한 한국 민·상법의 비교

김영균,장현진 한국경영법률학회 2008 經營法律 Vol.18 No.2

In 2004, Korea deposited its instrument of accession to the United Nation Convention on the International Sales of Goods(CISG) with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Following this development, the CISG entered into force, insofar as Korea was concerned, in March 2005. Therefore, the similarities and differences between the CISG and Korean Laws need to be examined. This study compares CISG with Korean Corporate and Civil Law about 'offer and acceptance of Contact'. There are eight major difference about these CISG and Korean Laws. First, CISG applies on 'place of business' but Korean Corporate law applies on 'merchant'. Second, CISG defines about 'Offer' and 'Acceptance'. But there is no definition in Korean Corporate and Civil Law. Third is deal with a lack of contract's main contents. Forth, CISG and Korean Civil Law differently regulate about offer's withdrawal. Fifth, in CISG, silence or inactivity doesn't admit in itself to acceptance. But Korean Corporate and Civil Law don't define. Sixth, Battle of Form doesn't define CISG and Korean Corporate and Civil Law. Seventh, there are some difference of view point between CISG and Koresn Civil Law on late acceptance. Final, Korean Corporate Law regulates obligation of notice. These differences are partly derived from both the reasonable character of the CISG and the defects in Korean Corporate and Civil Law. Thus, this study undergoes the imperative need to amend Korean Corporate and Civil Law in conformity with its obligations under the CISG.