변경을 가한 승낙에 관한 CIETAC 사례 연구- CISG를 중심으로 -

The wording of Article 18 shows that a statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer is an acceptance. Meanwhile, Article 19 states that this reply with different terms is a rejection of the offer and constitutes a counteroffer. For example, additional or different terms relating, among other things, to the price, payment, quality and quantity of the goods, place and time of delivery, extent of one party's liability to the other, or the settlement of disputes are considered to alter the terms of the offer materially. However, this reply with different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance unless the offer or, without undue delay, objects orally to the discrepancy or dispatches a notice to that effect. As a result, the acceptance depends on whether different terms are material or not. CIETEC holds that the deletion of contract violation liability clause is not equal to an alteration to the extent of one party's liability to the other as stipulated in Article 19(3) of the CISG. In addition, CIETAC recognizes that one party had orally accepted the modifications made to the sales confirmation, with even China declaring against an oral contract. Lastly, CIETAC holds that the sales confirmation has been established when both parties signed on the sales confirmation instead of the acceptance being effective. Korean companies should, thus, note these issues when they solve disputes at CIETAC.