• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.75-97
• /
• 2012

This study primarily concerns the transfer of letter of credit. A transferable credit is a credit that clearly specifies it is 'transferable' and may be made available in whole or in part to second beneficiary by the request of the first beneficiary. the transfer of the credit is available where the seller as a middleman in intermediate trades purchases from domestic and international supplier. The purpose of this study is to examine the transfer of letter of credit in the UCP600. Having recognized the differences, the study analyzes the transfer of letter of credit under the UCP600 in comparison to those under the ISP98. The ISP98, like the UCP600, stipulates for the requirement of transfer, the number of transfer, conditions of transfer, the replacement of the name of first beneficiary.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.263-283
• /
• 2011

There are two typical international rules in issuing guarantee for obligations of party which is responsible to provide some duties such as services, construction, plants, loan repayment, etc. The two internationally recognized rules are currently ISP98 and URDG758. ISP98 was firstly introduced in 1998 for American banks to issue standby letter of credit domestic and overseas for the area where UCP does not cover. URDG was introduced first in 1991 in the name of URDG458 but it has not been widely used and therefore new URDG named URDG758 came out in 2010 to accommodate more standard guarantee practice. At the face of these two prevailing international rules, the users are sometimes confused which rule would be more suitable for their individual transaction. This led us to conduct a comparative analysis on these two rules. Our study suggests that URDG758 is more adequate for construction, ship-building and plants-supply obligations whilst ISP98 is for financial obligations. Also attentions are required when issues such as counter guarantee, governing rule, presentation period, document examination period and default statement exist. This is because ISP98 and URDG758 have different view points.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.3 no.4
• /
• pp.55-72
• /
• 2000

The International Standby Practices (ISP98) has been carefully crafted for use with standby letters of credit. ISP98 is expected to become widely used for standby letters of credit commencing January 1, 1999. These new practices have been ratified and jointly published by the International Chamber of Commerce- the same organization that Provided us with the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits, UCP500. The intention behind drafting ISP98 was to consolidate common and accepted practices applying to Standby Letters of Credit and to set a worldwide standard. ISP98 gives issuing organizations a set of practices that are free from the anomalies that arise when UCP500 is applied to Standby Letters of Credit This paper focuses on ISP98 provisions that may lead to changes in forms of standby letters of credit and reimbursement agreements, that may lead to changes in standby practices, that may alert parties to issues they had not previously focused upon, or that parties may wish to limit or vary, This Paper also focuses on differences between ISP98 and the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, 1993 revision, ICC Publication No. 500(UCP 500).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.175-205
• /
• 2005

One of the important issues facing current letter of credit practice is the effect of nondocumetary conditions. A nondocumentary condition is a condition contained in the credit without stating the document to be presented in compliance therewith, so nondocumentary condition must be ascertained by reference to factual matters rather than by review of a tendered document. This study attempts to examine the regulations in UCP, ISP98 and UCC on the nondocumetary conditions and the opinions on the effect of nondocumetary conditions and to analyze various cases on the effect of nondocumetary conditions. The results of this study can be summarized as follows. Firstly, UCP, ISP98 and UCC stipulate that banks will deem nondocumetary conditions as not stated and will disregard then So the legal standards for nondocumetary conditions have established. Secondly, courts used to permit the effect of nondocumetary conditions on the basis of the Wichita rule, party autonomy. Thirdly, issuing banks and applicants should not attempt to put in any nondocumetary conditions in order to prevent disputes on the effect of nondocumetary conditions.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2011

Any attempt which requires banks to consider non-documentary conditions would destroy autonomy principle and increase the risks of the bank in L/C transactions. Therefore, non-documentary conditions are disregarded in the letter of credit. This provision was first introduced in UCP500, but later, ICC Position Paper No.3 added that if L/C requires documents related to non-documentary conditions, it cannot be disregarded. While the language in UCP600 is basically the same as that in UCP500, there is a difference between the two in that the former disregards the documents related to non-documentary conditions even if they are required by L/C. However, it should be remembered that international standard banking practice does not disregard all of non-documentary conditions. It recognizes the validity of some non-documentary conditions which it is not feasible to change into documentary conditions. That is, such non-documentary conditions as can be determined from an index specified in the guarantee or identified from the issuing bank's own records or their normal operations are recognized as valid in legal cases. ISP98 and UR00758 do not consider these as non-documentary conditions. The applicant should be cautious not to include non-documentary conditions in their applications.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.257-287
• /
• 2000

Many problems and complaints have been caused by applying the UCP to the standby credit. To solve the problem, International Standby Practices were established. ISP and UCP are similar in that both of them generally regulate the transaction of credit. However, when the ISP is compared with the UCP, the following features are found : 1. In the UCP, when Force Majeure such as acts of God or strikes cause temporary work stoppage, the expiration date cannot be extended. In the ISP, the expiration date can be extended to 30 days afte the place for presentation re-opens for business in the same situation. 2. The UCP does not specify who the issuer of a document must be because there can be many issuers of documents. In the ISP, it is specified that all required documents are to be issued by the beneficiary. 3. In the UCP, compliance between presented documents is required. In the ISP, a discrepancy between presented documents is allowed. 4. In the UCP, if drawings and/or shipments are required by a credit to be made in instalments, and a required drawing/instalment is not made, the credit ceases to be available for any subsequent instalment. In ISP, there is no loss of effect and no influence on the right of beneficiaries, even in the same situation. 5. In the UCP, multiple transfers are not permitted, but partial transfers are. ISP states just the opposite. Multiple transfers are permitted, but partial transfers are not. 6 The UCP obligate each bank (issuer, confirming and nominated bank) to complete their review within a 'reasonable time' but not more than seven banking days. In the ISP, less than three business days is deemed to be not unreasonable and more than seven days is deemed to be unreasonable. 7. ISP, unlike UCP, recognizes that issuers and confirmers may spread their risk through syndication and participation of standby credits. However, the thing to remember is that the ISP should be reviewed carefully before application. If necessary, a partial addition or modifications can be made. Usually, the best advantage of the ISP is given to the issuers. A positive use of the ISP can be made by issuers but, applicants should consider using the UCP to the their rights and duties.