• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.137-171
• /
• 2004

Under Article 2 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (1993 Revision. UCP), letter of credit means an arrangement whereby an issuing bank is to make a payment to a beneficiary, or is to accept and pay bills of exchange drawn by the beneficiary, or authorises another bank to effect such payment, or to accept and pay such bills of exchange, or to negotiate, against stipulated document(s), provided that the terms and conditions of the letter of credit are complied with. In letter of credit operations, all parties concerned deal with documents, and not with goods, services and/or other performances to which the documents may relate (UCP, Article 4). It is important to note that under UCP, if a letter of credit contains conditions without stating the document(s) to be presented in compliance therewith, banks will deem such conditions as not stated and will disregard them (Article 13 c). Section 5-108(g) of the Uniform Commercial Code also contains a similar provision. However on several occasions the Korean Supreme Court held that non-documentary conditions in letter of credit governed by UCP could be regarded as valid, although they were not desirable in the context of letter of credit transactions. The rationale underlying the decisions was that parties to the letter of credit transactions are free to determine the terms and conditions of the relevant letter of credit. After reviewing the relevant provisions of UCP, UCC, the International Standby Practices (ISP98) and the Supreme Court decisions of Korea, the author suggests that we classify conditions that do not require any documents (so called apparent non-documentary conditions) into two categories and treat them differently. There are apparent non-documentary conditions that are consistent with the nature of letter of credit and those which are inconsistent with the nature of letter of credit. In the first category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are valid and (ii) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded. In the second category there are two sub-categories, (i) those which are invalid and thus should be disregarded and (ii) those which are valid but deprive the instrument of the nature as letter of credit.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.353-375
• /
• 1998

This study is focused on the rules for resolving documentary credits disputes. First, International Chamber of Commerce published Documentary Credit Dispute Expertise Rules on October 1, 1997. The DOCDEX Rules are the International Chamber of Commerce(ICC) response to a clear call from the international banking community for a rapid, cost effective, expert-based dispute resolution mechanism for documentary credit practice, including bank-to-bank reimbursement issues. Next, The International Center for Letter of Credit Arbitration was established in September 1996. The Center was founded as a result of an initiative from within the letter of credit community and has been co-sponsored by the United States Council on International Banking(USCIB) and the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice Inc. In September, ICLOCA adopted its "Rules of Arbitration for Letter of Credit Disputes." Therefore, parties to letter of credit disputes should choose a appropriate dispute resolution mechanism under the circumstances in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.109-132
• /
• 2009

The purpose of the introduction of this article is as follows. It was frequent to put a condition on the letter of credit without stating corresponding document. But these attempts are very dangerous to the letter of credit operation. That is, if these types of conditions would be permitted in letter of credit, the independence principle must be collapsed. So these conditions must be disregarded in order to safeguard the independence principle. It is why UCP600 article 14(h) writes that if a Credit contains a condition without stating the document(s) to be presented in compliance therewith, banks will deem such conditions as not stated and will disregard it. But scope of this article 14 should not be limited by the conditions which do not state the document to be presented in compliance therewith. That is, the purpose of this article is to preserve the independence principle, so, if it is impossible to ascertain satisfaction with a condition, it should be disregarded as the non-documentary condition, even if the condition is included in the letter of credit together with document to be presented. Conclusively, whether or not a condition would be regarded as the non documentary condition depends on whether compliance of such condition is ascertained by presented documents stipulated in the letter of credit.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.495-513
• /
• 2000

In this paper, I examined the terms of letter of credit and standard for examination of documents. In connection with the test of standard, I reviewed the bank's reasonable care, inconsistence and linkage between documents, non-documentary conditions and the treatment of discrepant documents. Traditionally credit law is founded on two principles such as the standards of strict of compliance and substantial compliance, but these standards are not consistency. Moreover although the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits(UCP) introduces a new standard for examination of documents by incorporating international banking practice, the standards for documentary compliance have created ambiguity. Accordingly, I suggest that the standard requires strict compliance between party concerned in letter of credit transactions but only requires international standard banking practice in customer relationship. Therefore the standard and the specific guideline should be prescribed in the next version of the UCP.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.51
• /
• pp.187-210
• /
• 2011

International transactions have the threat of non-payment by the buyer or non-performance by the seller. Parties tend to search for additional means of securing performance and payment beyond the mere agreement in the contract. Such security may be achieved by means of a letter of credit. When contracting parties have agreed to pay by means of a letter of credit, the buyer's bank takes upon itself the obligation to pay the purchase price when the seller tenders the documents that are stipulated in the letter of credit. The documents must comply strictly with the terms of the credit.. The documents play a crucial role in letter of credit transaction. The principles of abstraction, separability and strict compliance governing the letter of credit transaction are considered. The concept of fundamental breach of Article 25 CISG was discussed. This article examines whether a failure to deliver documents conforming to the terms of the letter of credit can constitute a fundamental breach of the sales contract as defined by Article 25 of the CISG by the seller and thereby enable the buyer to avoid the contract. For letter of credit transactions it should be accepted that the delivery of non-performing documents constitutes a fundamental breach, if the result of this breach is that the bank refuses to pay the price for the goods. On the other hand, in the interpretation of Article 25 CISG, it should be noted that if the parties have agreed to payment by means of a letter of credit, they have simultaneously agreed to apply the strict compliance principle to the delivery of documents in the sales contract. Finally the parties should ensure that inconsistency between the requirements under the documentary credit and the requirements under the contract of sale is avoided, since the buyer may be in breach of his payment obligation if the seller cannot get paid under the documentary credit when his documents conform with the contract of sale.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.605-630
• /
• 2000

A letter of credit plays very important roles in rational and smooth international trade. But the parties to letter of credit transactions can bring about many troubles and losses in such transactions because of ignorance and limits of their rights and responsibilities. The purpose of this study is to analyze a legal position of confirming bank and limits of responsibilities of the confirming bank on the UCP and authoritative decisions by ICC. I attempts to analyze a legal position of confirming bank and limits of responsibilities between the confirming bank and the contract parties at the documentary credit transactions on the basis of theoretical, lawful, and international transactions.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2004

UCP 500 has introduced new words "International Standard Banking Practice" as the basis of the examination of documents under documentary credits. However, the words have caused confusion among parties concerned with letter of credits. So, at its May 2000 meeting, ICC Banking Commission established a task force to document international standard banking practice for the examination of documents presented under documentary credits(ISBP). The publication is the product of two and a half years of work by a task force of the ICC Banking Commission. It was approved by the full Commission at its meeting in Rome in October 2002. The ISBP is a practical complement to UCP 500. It explains how the rules are to be applied on a day-to-day basis. As such, it fills a needed gap between the general principles announced in the rules and the daily work of the documentary credit practitioner. But, ISBP have two problems. First, ISBP impose more responsibilities than before the ISBP existed on banks. Second, ISBP have some problematic articles like the problem of maturity, letter of credit language, term. Consequently, all parties concerned with documentary credits need to armour themselves with knowledge for ISBP. Also, it should be noted that any term in a documentary credit which modifies or affects the applicability of a provision of the UCP may also have an impact on international standard banking practice. Therefore, in considering the practices described in this publication, parties must take into account any term in a documentary credit that expressly excludes or modifies a provision in an article of the UCP.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.99-127
• /
• 2003

Legal sources of fraud rule in documentary letter of credit, which have their origin in Sztejn Case can be traced to various rules or laws of international or domestic level ; URCG, URDG and ISP98 as ICC Rules, and UNCITRAL Convention as an international uniform law, and UCC as a domestic law and U.K. cases. Among them the combination of "material fraud" in UCC ${\S}5-109$ and the detailed list of the types of misconduct in UNCITRAL Convention may provide the best solution or standard in real application of the fraud rule in letter of credit transaction.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.89-109
• /
• 2014

The purpose of price escalation clauses has the effect of increasing the L/C value subject to external pricing mechanisms. This will be found inter alia in metals and oil products transactions. Such a clause gives rise to a question. That is, whether it is enforceable or whether it constitutes a letter of credit. The problem is what to reference to a source outside the context of a letter of credit constitutes a non-documentary condition rendering the undertaking something other than a letter of credit. Reference to an objective and readily available index is not something that renders the undertaking obscure and is not "non-documentary in the sense that it is possible to make an objective verification of the data. The possible solution is that not every non-documentary condition will be disregarded. For example, an index specified in the credit will not be disregarded as stipulated in ISP98 and URDG758. If a non-documentary is "central and fundamental", it seems that the parties intended a dependent payment obligations. The most common means of overcoming this conflicts of interests is to issue an instrument incorporatingan escalation clause, but capping the bank's maximum payment obligation.