학술논문
미국계약법의 구조와 이해
이용수 305
- 영문명
- The Structure of American Contract Law and its Understanding
- 발행기관
- 한국재산법학회
- 저자명
- 가정준(Ka Jung-joon)
- 간행물 정보
- 『재산법연구』財産法硏究 第23卷 第3號, 23~46쪽, 전체 24쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.02.28
5,680원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
It is not easy to explain the structure of American Contract Law because of different legal worlds. First, the structures of contract law between in common law and civil law are different to each other. Second, historical and theoretical backgrounds for contract laws between in common law and civil law are not the same to each other. Legal scholars between in two different worlds may have made little effort to understand the other world. However, since 1980s, the whole world has begun to unify the law for sale of goods. Its purpose initiated to reduce the transaction costs. The result became into existence as "United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods"(hereafter "CISG"). Korea also participated in this movement in 2005 by approving this treaty in National Assembly. In fact, "CISC" is a result of harmonization between common law and civil law. Therefore, the demand for understanding common law has increased. That is the main reason why I introduced this paper to this Law Review.
In common law, the most important and unique concept may be "Consideration." The doctrine of consideration may represent the history of contract law in common law. It has originated from "causa" under Roman law. However, it has differently developed to distinguish enforceable promise from unenforceable promises. The independent development for the doctrine of consideration in the United States stimulated the separation from English contract law. The structure of common law for contracts has developed based on litigation rather than substantial law. This structure has mainly focused on the concept to distinguish enforceable contract from unenforceable contract. The concept of "defense" has been used to do this purpose.
Many kinds of defenses have played a decisive role for defendants to claim that the contract cannot be enforceable in action. They do make contracts unenforceable rather than void. On the other hand, three discharges - impracticability, impossibility, and frustration - render to relieve defendants from their contract duty without the liability from breach of contract. They do not make contract unenforceable, but both party no liable.
In addition, this paper has examined how plaintiff can be compensated from the breach of contract in action. Mainly, plaintiff can seek for specific performance or damage award. In damage awards, first, in Korea, plaintiff can be compensated based on the evaluation by the expectation damage in the United States. Second, unlike in Korea, the damage can be evaluated with the reliance damage if some other conditions are satisfied in the United States. The reliance damage has played a supplementary role to solve problems from the doctrine of Consideration.
In conclusion, this paper is not possible to wholly explain the structure of American contract law. Since many scholars has been interested in common law, I hope that this paper helps them to understand the background of American contract law rather than detail contract law.
In common law, the most important and unique concept may be "Consideration." The doctrine of consideration may represent the history of contract law in common law. It has originated from "causa" under Roman law. However, it has differently developed to distinguish enforceable promise from unenforceable promises. The independent development for the doctrine of consideration in the United States stimulated the separation from English contract law. The structure of common law for contracts has developed based on litigation rather than substantial law. This structure has mainly focused on the concept to distinguish enforceable contract from unenforceable contract. The concept of "defense" has been used to do this purpose.
Many kinds of defenses have played a decisive role for defendants to claim that the contract cannot be enforceable in action. They do make contracts unenforceable rather than void. On the other hand, three discharges - impracticability, impossibility, and frustration - render to relieve defendants from their contract duty without the liability from breach of contract. They do not make contract unenforceable, but both party no liable.
In addition, this paper has examined how plaintiff can be compensated from the breach of contract in action. Mainly, plaintiff can seek for specific performance or damage award. In damage awards, first, in Korea, plaintiff can be compensated based on the evaluation by the expectation damage in the United States. Second, unlike in Korea, the damage can be evaluated with the reliance damage if some other conditions are satisfied in the United States. The reliance damage has played a supplementary role to solve problems from the doctrine of Consideration.
In conclusion, this paper is not possible to wholly explain the structure of American contract law. Since many scholars has been interested in common law, I hope that this paper helps them to understand the background of American contract law rather than detail contract law.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 미국 계약법 이해를 위한 배경
Ⅲ. 미국 계약법의 내용
Ⅳ. 결론
참고 문헌
〈Abstract〉
Ⅱ. 미국 계약법 이해를 위한 배경
Ⅲ. 미국 계약법의 내용
Ⅳ. 결론
참고 문헌
〈Abstract〉
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 교회의 분열과 재산귀속에 관한 판례법리의 변천 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2006. 4. 20. 선고 2004다37775 전원합의체 판결
- 民法 總則編 제5장(법률행위) 제1절(총칙)과 제2절(의사표시)에 관한 개정방향
- 미국 불법행위 법리에서의 안전벨트 항변
- 저작인접권자의 공연권 도입 여부에 대한 고찰 - 음반제작자를 중심으로
- 意思表示의 主觀的 構成要素
- 미국계약법연구서설 - 그 구조와 현대적 의의
- 해상화물운송장에 대한 법적고찰
- 의사의 설명의무에 관한 최근 판례의 동향과 그 비판적 고찰
- 영미법상 Consideration 법리와 계약의 쌍무성
- 미국계약법의 구조와 이해
- 착오규정의 개정시안에 따른 비정상적인 의사표시의 체계변화 및 농담으로 한 의사표시의 취급
- 민법 제393조와 불법행위법에서의 예견가능성
- 해지환급금청구를 위한 제3채권자의 보험계약해지
- 附錄
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!