Interpretation of Estoppel Doctrine in the Letter of Credit Transaction : Comparison between UCP 500 and 95 UCC

신용장거래(信用狀去來)에서의 금반언법리(禁反言法理)에 관한 해석(解釋) - UCP 500 제13조, 제14조와 95 UCC 제5-108조의 비교를 중심으로 -

The letter of credit is quintessentially international. In the absence of international legal system, a private system based on banking practices has evolved, commanding the adherence of the international letter of credit community and providing the foundation of th reputation of this instrument. To maintain this international system, it is vital that international standard banking practice should not be subject to local interpretations that misconstrue or distort it. The UCP is a formulation of international standard banking practice. It is neither positive law nor a "contract term" in any traditional sense and its interpretation must be consonant with its character as a living repositary of international understanding in this field. As a result, the interpretation and application of specific articles of the UCP must be consistent with its evolving character and history and with the principles upon which sound letter of credit practice is predicated. This study, especially, focuses on article 13 and article 14 of the UCP500. Article 13(b) of UCP500 stipulates that banks will have a reasonable time, not to exceed seven days, to examine documents to determine whether they comply facially with the terms of the credit. The seven-day provision is not designed as a safe harbor, because the rule requires the issuer to act within a reasonable time. But, by virtue of the deletion of the preclusion rule in the document examination article in UCP500, however, seven days may evolve as something of a safe harbor, especially for banks that engage in strategic behavior. True, under UCP500 banks are supposed to examine documents within a reasonable time, but there are no consequences in UCP500 for a bank's violation of that duty. It is only in the next provision. Courts might read the preclusion more broadly than the literal reading mentioned here or might fashion a common-law preclusion rule that does not require a showing of detriment. Absent that kind of development, the change in the preclusion rule could have adverse effects on the beneficiary. The penalty, strict estoppel or strict preclusion, under UCP500 and 95UCC differs from the classic estoppel. The classic estoppel rule requires a beneficiary to show three elements. 1. conduct on the part of the issuer that leads the beneficiary to believe that nonconforming documents do conform; 2. reasonable reliance by the beneficiary; and 3. detriment from that reliance. But stict preclusion rule needs not detrimental reliance. This strict estoppel rule is quite strict, and some see it as a fitting pro-beneficiary rule to counterbalance the usually pro-issuer rule of strict compliance.