• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.38
• /
• pp.47-68
• /
• 2008

I have observed the validity of open-offer from a point of European contract law in comparison with International Trade Law in this paper. Generally we know that an offer is an expression of willingness bo be bound to the contract. In English law if there are no intention it will be considered such as circulation of price lists or catalogues. As for French law these activities could be considered as an offer. However German law is closer to English law as to an offer. A contract which does not ascertained price is open-price terms and it can be applied not only for general commercial contracts but also for franchise or for distributorship agreements especially in Europe. When open-price terms applied to reserve a exclusive right to the contract the validity of contract can be a serious matter between principals. In English law an offer must be sufficiently complete to be capable of acceptaqnce. English law does not require that price terms should be indicated on offer. English law allow a open-price terms in the contract. In French law a contract will be valid in the absense of a price which is either determined or objectively determinable. A price by the market price of similar products is not enough to be valid offer. It should be recognized and accepted objectively by third parties. French law require that price terms should be indicated on offer. Open-price terms are not enough to be an effective offer. However German law shows more flexible than French law. In German law if the price is not fixed in the contract there are four ways to determine it. The seller may determine the price by the time of deliver. By reason of thess backgrounds I have made comparison with European contract law and International trade law on the validity of open-price offer in this paper. It seems that we are not familiar with open-price terms although franchise contract or special terms of contract have been increased in these days. So I hope this paper will be helpful to show a new point of view.

• Language and Information
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.31-58
• /
• 2003

The main goal of this paper is to describe and analyse intensifiers, especially non-head-bound-intensifiers (NHBIs), which can be included in the discussion and analysis of these elements as focus particles. In doing so, NHBIs such as Korean susulo, casin/cache, English x-self and German selbst are dealt with in a rather cross-linguistical perspective. The pure and strict comparison between Korean, English and German is not intended. This paper is mainly concerned with the semantic domain where the respective contributions of the expressions in question overlap, which offers the common base for the discussion regarding Korean, one of the non-European languages and English and German, two European languages. They share the semantic domain ‘intensification’ regarding relevant subject-NP. They introduce an ordering distinguishing center and periphery. In contrast to head-bound-intensifiers (HBIs), however, NHBIs add self-involvement (directness of involvement) of subject-NP to the meaning of the relevant sentence. I adopt the proposals of Konig (1991), Primus (1992) and Siemund (2000) in the treatment of intensifiers as focus particles. However, I reject Konig (1991) that just NHBIs talre scope over a whole clause, Primus (1992) that NHBIs focus VPs, not NPs, and Siemund (2000) that NHBIs can be further devided into two groups, viz. NHBIs with exclusive readings and NHBIs with inclusive readings. Evidence for my position is presented mainly in the course of describing and analysing some syntactic properties and the meaning and use of NHBIs. I come to the conclusion that both the common meaning of intensifiers as focus particles and the common meaning of NHBIs of three languages can be represented by a simple logical formalism.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.483-503
• /
• 1995

The purpose of this study was to clarify the origin which have misused terms, analyze Its meanings and suggest the unified terms. The content of this study are as follows. The origin of the terms in western dress is different with the areas of cultural influence. Japanese occupied much more than other languages in the apparel industry after the civilization. and English has dominated in the educational filed since 1945 the Liberalization. French, German, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch are added. These languages came to the clothing field via Japanese and English or directly from the countries. 망토(manteau프), 메리야스(medias스), 러닝셔츠(일) 라사(raxa네), 오트 쿠튀르(Haute Couture 프), 비로드(veludo 포), etc. However the words of foreign origin have misused or corrupted until now a days. 마이 (재킷, 상의), 노 슬립, 소데나시 (슬리브리스, 민소매) 넌라쟈(브래지어), 노타이, 노타이샤쓰(오픈칼라 셔츠, 넥타이를 매지 않은 셔츠) 와이샤쓰(드레스 ttu츠), etc. And also these terms are confused in using because of the word's diversity, the different nationality, change of the marking rules, and the difference between the education and production field terms. On the others hand, this study explained the differences between western costume and Korean costume as the clothing manufacture terms were translated to Korean. bodice-길, collar, neckline-깃, belt, sash-(허리)띠 And then the untied terms were suggested through the comparison production field and educational area (including schools and institutes). lapel, 라펠(학교용어) (학원용어), 가에리 (일) (의류산업 현장용어), 아랫깃(통일어) By the way, this study involved the origin of and misused teams in sewing and presented the unified terms. 미까시 (X)-미 카에시(일) - 안단($\bigcirc$), 이새(X)―홈줄임 ($\bigcirc$) As the above , the characteristics of clothing terms which have misused are Japans,;e, corrupt Japanese, false reports foreign words via Korean, Japanese, compound words of Korean and Japanese, compound words of English and Japanese. And also the words of foreign origin in clothing had the following tendency in the marking system. There are ellipsis of form, sex, timber, grammatical case '-ing', '-ed' in adjective and long vowels express to short vowels. We can see this phenomena as the rule of curtailment labor.

• Archives of design research
• /
• v.16 no.4
• /
• pp.413-422
• /
• 2003

In the early 20th century, the efforts for design standards for industry and the new aesthetic of Functionalism began from the Deutcher Werkbund, an English German Association of Craftsmen. In the similar vein, the Bauhaus, founded in 1919 at Weimar, provided the definition of Good Design, as a contemporary concept, that combines art with technology. From 1950 to 1955, the modern usage of the term 'Good Design' was derived from a series of exhibitions and consumer education programs conducted by the MOMA(Museum of Modern Art, New York). The mission was to bring modern design to the attention of the general public. From the second half of the 20th century, many specialists in different areas, such as designers, manufacturers, enterprises, and scholars, began to give various definitions of 'Good Design'. That's why it could be interpreted and applied to unique and various methods by them. Meanwhile, Rams and Norman argued that the Good Design has to be not only considered within function, aesthetic, technology, etc, but also interpreted from both the physical and psychological point of views. Accordingly, this study tried to find out the historical investigation and the definition of Good Design in detail, and to figure out that the user-centered design from both physical and psychological approaches is eventually synonymous to 'Good Design'.