• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.277-314
• /
• 2006

This article aims at analysing the reality of banks' liability resulting from the breach of contract on its part to keep the business secrecy with the supplier in the transferable credit, focusing on a English decision, Jackson v. Royal Bank of Scotland [2005] UKHL 3. In this case, the applicant, 'Econ', had purchased various varieties of pre-packed dog chews in bulk through 'Sam'(lst beneficiary) from 'PPLtd'(2nd beneficiary) in Thailand, using a transferable letter of credit issued by 'RBank'. 'Sam' charged a tremendous amount of mark-up on each transaction and it had not been disclosed to 'Econ', although the identity of 'PPLtd' was revealed to 'Econ' by various documents. However, 'RBank' made an unfortunate error to send an completion statement and other documents including 'PPLtd.'s invoice to 'Econ' instead of to 'Sam'. The effect of the Bank's error was to reveal to 'Econ' the substantial profit that 'Sam' was making on these transactions. CEO of 'Econ' was furious and, as a result, decided to cut 'Sam' out of its importing system and terminated their relationship. 'Sam' sued 'RBank' for damages to recover the loss of profits which could have been possibly made, if the information on the mark-up would not have been exposed to 'Econ'. The House of Lord held that 'RBank' was in breach of its duty of confidence, so 'Sam' was entitled to recover damages on a decreasing scale over 4 years, since there was no specific undertaking from the letter of credit.