• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.111-135
• /
• 2013

This study analyzes some important spin-off effects of the provision, UCP600 Article 14(6), through the methodology of the expected utility maximization theory based on the state-contingent commodities model. Some technical implications of this study are as follows. First, the risk-averse beneficiary will choose to present his documents more than 5 days before expiry date by paying a higher risk premium (so-called cure period) for full assurance to cure documentary discrepancies, if expressed economically, he pursues loss reducing activities to the point where the expected marginal product of his activities is less than its marginal cost. Secondly, where the effectiveness of securing cure period is uncertain, the risk-averse beneficiary will choose to present documents just on the expiry date without securing any cure period by paying no risk premium. This study finally suggests the safe harbor standard should be optimal solution only if it is supplemented by the hidden reasonableness standard for balancing the conflicts of interest between beneficiaries and banks.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.515-536
• /
• 2000

This study analyzes the U.S. case law which challenges the legal conclusions of the district court with respect to the applicability, and effect, of the doctrine of waiver and estoppel in addition to the doctrine of documentary cure. The impliations are as follows. First, the documentary cure requirement can not be interpreted to mean early enough to allow the beneficiary to cure and represent the documents before the presentment deadline or expiry date of letter of credit. The mere fact that the presentment period expired before the completion of bank's review and notification process does not compel any conclusion about whether the examiner spent a reasonable amount of time examining the documents. Indeed, the reasonable time requirement does not imply that banks examine a presentation out of order or hurry a decision based upon particular needs or desires of a beneficiary. Secondly, even if the doctrine of waiver can apply to letter of credit governed by the strict compliance standard, a one-time acceptance of discrepant documents by a bank does not waive the bank's right to insist upon conforming documents in all subsequent letter of credit transactions between the bank and beneficiary. Revised UCC Article 5 is highly persuasive on this point: waiver of discrepancies by issuer or an applicant in one or more presentation does not waive similar discrepancies in a future presentation. Neither the issuer nor the beneficiary can reasonably rely upon honor over past waivers as a basis for concluding that a future defective presentation will justify honor.