• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.429-460
• /
• 1999

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.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.46 no.5
• /
• pp.173-194
• /
• 2021

This study aims to derive precaution points for issuing banks in refusing payment under L/C through literature review and examination of court cases and official opinions of ICC Banking Commission with regard to the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 that stipulates obligations of issuing banks in refusing payment. If the issuing bank fails to act in accordance with this article, it shall be precluded from claiming that the documents do not constitute a complying presentation. Therefore, it is crucial that issuing banks should be well informed of this article. When discrepant documents are presented, however, issuing banks seldom refuse payment because, in most cases, the applicants waive the discrepancies. For this reason, issuing banks have few chances to deal with payment refusal in practice and thus they occasionally end up failing to observe the provisions of the article. Such court cases include Kookmin Bank and Korean Exchange Bank (currently Hana Bank) that failed to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice losing the lawsuits. It should be noted that if issuing banks disregard the provisions of article 16 of UCP 600 and thus fail to indicate discrepancies in the refusal notice, they may face fatal situations in which they must make payment against discrepant documents.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.70
• /
• pp.1-20
• /
• 2016

This study is to find the accurate interpretations for the UCP600 by integrating, ISBP745, Official Opinions of ICC Banking Commission and some Case Laws suggesting the reasonable implication for the upcoming UCP. Major results analyzed by this study are as follows. First, The preclusion rule, UCP600 Article 16(c), is closely connected with the doctrine of documentary cure, so the banks requirement of Single Notice must state all the discrepancies of the documents presented. Exceptionally if the cured documents by the presenter are happened to be inconsistent the initial notice the bank can require the presenter to re-tender within the expiry date or the last day for presentation. Secondly, The Issuing Bank can utilize the right of seeking a waiver of documentary discrepancies from the applicant with the time limit of 5 banking days. If the bank wants to require an applicant to report discrepancies promptly, he may include a provision in the reimbursement engagement limiting the time limit within which the applicant must give notice of facial discrepancies. Thirdly, if a credit contains a non-documentary condition, banks will deem such condition as not states and will disregard it. According to the principle of private autonony if a credit contains a non-documentary condition to be consistent with by the parties concerned in a credit the non-documentary condition can be treated, as an effective condition itself. Fourthly, according to the Korean Supreme Court's decision, negotiation includes the method of crediting the credit amount and then transfers such funds into a special account and controls the account. Finally, UCP600 Article 33 states a bank has no obligation to accept a presentation outside of its banking hours. However, there is no rule in UCP600 in regard to a presentation after the close of business. Hopefully the upcoming UCP has to stipulates a sort of definite article to determine such ambiguous.