Contract Formation and Third Party Beneficiaries in Korea

Author(s):  
Kwon Youngjoon

This chapter 14 discusses the rules on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Korea. These can be found in the Korean Civil Code of 1960 that is closely modelled on the Japanese Civil Code, therefore many of its solutions can be ultimately traced back to German law. For a binding contract to be made, Korean law only requires an agreement which is normally constituted by an offer and a matching acceptance; there is no requirement of consideration, and as a general rule there is freedom of form—only limited statutory exceptions impose formal requirements for specific types of contract. Offers must be sufficient and sufficiently definite, and they must be made with the intention to be legally bound. They become effective once they reach the offeree. After that they are, in principle, irrevocable—a position only slightly softened by a 2014 Ministry of Justice draft amendment. The draft also suggests abolishing the common law-style ‘mailbox rule’ that the Code inherited from the Japanese Civil Code.

Author(s):  
Ly Tayseng

This chapter gives an overview of the law on contract formation and third party beneficiaries in Cambodia. Much of the discussion is tentative since the new Cambodian Civil Code only entered into force from 21 December 2011 and there is little case law and academic writing fleshing out its provisions. The Code owes much to the Japanese Civil Code of 1898 and, like the latter, does not have a requirement of consideration and seldom imposes formal requirements but there are a few statutory exceptions from the principle of freedom from form. For a binding contract, the agreement of the parties is required and the offer must be made with the intention to create a legally binding obligation and becomes effective once it reaches the offeree. The new Code explicitly provides that the parties to the contract may agree to confer a right arising under the contract upon a third party. This right accrues directly from their agreement; it is not required that the third party declare its intention to accept the right.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (02) ◽  
pp. 84-93
Author(s):  
Bebeto Ardyo

The increasement of human needs in society goes hand in hand with the development of technology. To meet these needs, there must be interaction between people which sometimes has the potential to cause disputes. That’s why a contract is needed. The existence of a contract guarantees legal certainty regarding protection of the rights of the parties and also the obligations that they must fulfill. There are several stages of contract formation which consist of pre-contract and agreement between the parties. According to the system in the Book III of Indonesia’s Code of Civil Law, consensus is the base for the formation of contract that means once the agreement has reached between the parties then a contract is formed. Indonesia’s Code of Civil Law doesn’t yet regulate pre-contract stages of contract formation, even though these stages are equally important. The regulation of pre-contract stages are usually set in the common law system, but along with the times, the regulation of pre-contract stages should also be regulated in the civil law system. As a comparison, Het Nieuw Burgerlijke Wetboek (New Civil Code of Netherlands) has already regulated that pre-contract stages, although the Netherlands is a country that implements civil law system. The pre-contract stages are very important to be regulated in Indonesia because there are many potential pre-contractual issues. This paper aims to formulate the outline of what needs to be regulated in the pre-contract regulations. Keywords : Interaction, Contract, Formation, Civil Code  


Studies in the Contract Laws of Asia provides an authoritative account of the contract law regimes of selected Asian jurisdictions, including the major centres of commerce where limited critical commentaries have been published in the English language. Each volume in the series aims to offer an insider’s perspective into specific areas of contract law—remedies, formation, parties, contents, vitiating factors, change of circumstances, illegality, and public policy—and explores how these diverse jurisdictions address common problems encountered in contractual disputes. A concluding chapter draws out the convergences and divergences, and other themes. All the Asian jurisdictions examined have inherited or adopted the common law or civil law models of European legal systems. Scholars of legal transplant will find a mine of information on how received law has developed after the initial adaptation and transplant process, including the influences affecting and mechanisms of these developments. The many points of convergence and divergence (in both form and in substance) emerge. These provide good starting points for regional harmonization projects. Volume II of this series deals with contract formation and contracts for the benefit of third parties in the laws of China, India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Typically, each jurisdiction is covered in two chapters; the first deals with contract formation, while the second deals with contracts for the benefit of third parties.


Author(s):  
Yoshikazu Yamashita

This chapter provides insights into the law on contract formation in Japan. The Japanese approach is traditional, requiring an agreement which, in turn, normally requires an offer and matching acceptance, according to the mirror image rule. Once offers become effective, the 1898 Japanese Civil Code severely restricts their revocability. This is in tune with the mostly German origins of Japanese contract law. However, the drafters of the Code deliberately followed the common law in one respect: the offeree’s acceptance becomes effective as soon as it is dispatched. This is highly controversial and in 2001 was abolished for acceptances by electronic means. Ongoing major reform of Japanese contract law will probably extend this solution to all contracts. Japanese law has no doctrine of consideration and has traditionally eschewed formal requirements as a prerequisite for the validity or enforceability of contracts. More recently, formalities have been introduced, first, for certain consumer contracts, then for contracts of suretyship. A particular feature of Japanese law pertaining to contract formation is the strong duty to negotiate in good faith.


Author(s):  
Lusina HO

This chapter examines the law on contract formation in Hong Kong which is closely modelled on the English common law but adapts the English solutions to the local context if and when required. The test for ascertaining the parties’ meeting of the minds is objective, the agreement (an offer with a matching acceptance) must be certain, complete, and made with the intention to create legal relations—the latter being presumed to be present in a commercial context and absent in a familial or social context. Offers are freely revocable although the reliance of the offeree is protected in exceptional circumstances. Acceptances become effective as soon as they are dispatched. In the ‘battle of forms’ scenario, the Hong Kong courts follow the traditional ‘last-shot’ rule. There is no general duty to negotiate in good faith, and even agreements to negotiate in good faith are normally unenforceable for lack of certainty. As a general rule, contracts can be validly made without adhering to any formal requirement. Online contracts will normally be valid and enforceable; the formation of such contracts is governed by common law as supplemented by legislation.


1976 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Shalev

Chapter 4 of the new Israeli Contracts (General Part) Law, 1973, introduces the concept of a contract in favour of a third party, while granting express recognition to the right of a third party beneficiary. Even those, (including the author) who maintain, that the right of a third party beneficiary could and should be derived, even before the commencement of the new Law, from the general principles and premises of the old Israeli law of contract, cannot fail to see in the above-mentioned chapter an important innovation in the Israeli legal system.This paper is a comparative analysis of the institution of third party beneficiary. The analysis will consist of a presentation and critical examination of the central concepts and doctrines involved in the institution under discussion, and it will be combined with a comparative survey of the arrangements adopted in various legal systems. The choice of this approach stems from the particular circumstances of the new legislation.While in most countries, comparative legal research is a luxury, in Israel it is a necessity. The new legislation in private law is inspired to a great extent by Continental codifications. As far as the law of contract is concerned, Israel is now in the process of becoming a “mixed jurisdiction”: departing from the common law tradition and technique, and heading towards an independent body of law, derived from various sources, mainly Continental in both substance and form.


2021 ◽  
pp. 307-358
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier

Poole’s Casebook on Contract Law provides a comprehensive selection of case law that addresses all aspects of the subject encountered on undergraduate courses. This chapter examines privity of contract, its relationship with consideration, and the ability of third parties to enforce contractual provisions for their benefit. The doctrine of privity of contract provides that the benefits of a contract can be enjoyed only by the parties to that contract and only parties can suffer the burdens of the contract. At common law, third party beneficiaries could not enforce a contractual provision in their favour so various devices were employed seeking to avoid privity. Statute now allows for direct third party enforcement but in limited circumstances. This chapter examines the background to privity and the attempted statutory reform in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as it has been interpreted in the case law. The chapter also discusses the common law means of avoiding privity as illustrated by the case law, e.g. agency, collateral contracts, and trusts of contractual obligations. Finally, it assesses the remedies available to the contracting party to recover on behalf of the third party beneficiary of the promise, including the narrow and broad grounds in Linden Gardens Trust. It concludes by briefly considering privity and burdens—and the exceptional situations where a burden can be imposed on a person who is not a party to the contract.


Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley

This chapter discusses the problem of when a duty of care arises in respect of negligent omissions, or for the actions of a third party. The common law takes the view that it would be too great a burden to impose liability upon a person for a mere omission, or for the actions of others. Despite this, duties can in fact be imposed in various ways, all of which focus on the reliance of the claimant upon the defendant. This can come about either by the previous conduct of the defendant, which induces reliance by the claimant that the defendant will continue to act in that way, or by reliance which comes out of a relationship of dependence between the parties. As regards third parties, a duty may arise where the defendant has control over or responsibility for the third party’s actions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document