메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 외법논집 외법논집 제33권 제1호
발행연도
2009.1
수록면
171 - 204 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
PELSC deals with in its general provisions the problem of which of the parties is responsible for a disappointing output of the service process. PECL contains sets of principles that regulate the problem. But the latter provide only general rules of the problem. Service contracts need more specific rules in order to provide the parties with a reasonable degree of legal certainty. PELSC give a good opportunity to examine the obligations of the parties who try to conclude service contracts or have concluded them. The Korean Civil Code has not good enough provisions of the ancillary obligations in service contracts. It caused the court to make unclear decisions, which could not persuade the service contract parties. And They want to know what obligations or rights they have in the service process and what remedy they may resort to. PELSC will be a good reference, on the assumption that it was studied profoundly. But PELSC is lately published and is not made a profound study. For example, The Comment said that the client's failure to warn will prevent him form invoking the service provider's non-performance in the sense of Art. 8:101 (3) PECL. In my opinion, this situation was dealt with regarding the individual circumstances. The client may in principle resort to any remedy under Chapter 9 PECL. In exceptional circumstances his remedy is excluded, because non-performance of the duty to warn did not cause the non-performance of the service-provider's main obligation. These explanations can be found in the non-performance of the duty to co-operate.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (8)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0