• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.111-137
• /
• 2011

UCP 600 Article 14(b), providing rules for the period of the examination of documents, is a radical reorganization of UCP Article 13(b). The provision changes the period of time to a maximum of five banking days instead of reasonable time. One of the critical problems giving rise to the difficulty in interpretation and application is the question of fact that there may be two possible conflicting options in determining the time of checking documents presented. The one doctrine is fixed time(safe harbor) standard, and the other is hidden reasonableness standard. This study analyzes which option should be adopted for the optimal application standard by welfare effect methodology using consumer surplus approach and suggests that safe harbor standard should be optimal solution to the determination of period of examination of documents presented in letter of credit regime.

• 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
• /
• 제12권
• /
• 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.