This paper conducts a comparative doctrinal analysis of the legal consequences arising from non-delivery in business-to-business supply contracts under Uzbek and South Korean law. Utilizing primary statutory sources, judicial interpretations, and scholarly commentaries, the study explores definitions of non-delivery, remedial options including specific performance, termination, and damages, mitigation and notice requirements, enforcement procedures, and doctrinal insights. Both jurisdictions, influenced by civil law traditions and the CISG, treat non-delivery as a fundamental breach warranting robust buyer protections, though procedural variances exist, such as Korea’s emphasis on peremptory notices and Uzbekistan’s detailed cover mechanisms. The analysis reveals convergences in compensatory principles and good faith, with implications for cross-border commercial transactions.