• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.3
• /
• pp.189-211
• /
• 2011

This article aims at analysing the practical problems of FOB and CIF terms relating to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 in case of L/C transactions and presenting the defending measures against them. According to Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010, FOB and CIF terms are to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport and require the seller deliver the goods on board the vessel nominated by the buyer at named port of shipment. So if FOB and CIF terms will be used in sea transport under L/C transaction, the seller should ship the goods on the nominated vessel and present the shipping document indicating "on board vessel" to the issuing bank but the parties agree to present the received bill of lading according to special condition on L/C which is" received bill of lading are acceptable". In practical transaction, FOB and CIF terms are usually used in aircraft cargo, container cargo or multimodal transport. these facts are a violation of Incoterms. Incoterms$^{(R)}$2010 which regulated that FOB and CIF terms may not be appropriate where goods are handed over the carrier before they are on board the vessel for example goods in container. These transactions are a temporary expedient and breach of Incoterms in the international trade which must be corrected as soon as possible.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.55-74
• /
• 2007

The documentary credit has been functioning as an indispensable tool for making international commercial transactions safer throughout the world since ICC adopted the second revision of the Uniform Customs and Practices for Commercial Documentary Credits in 1962. Letter of Credit transaction should be cleared by the principle of the trust and integrity and vile partners sometimes make a fraud on the L/C by the misinterpretation of the documents. As there is no rule but no exception, exception from application of these principles is allowed. The fraud exception nile constitutes contracting out an application of basic principles, this rule should apply restrictively and in many authorities a court does not apply this rule to nominated bank, confirming bank, and bona fide holder of draft even if fraud is involved in L/C transactions. If not, we lose a lot of benefits from the credit as valuable commercial device through reservation of these principles to take a few benefits. So, We need to recognize that the fraud exception rule should be applied restrictively. Therefore, this study reviewed condition of application and exception from application of fraud exception rule in view of Cardozo's opinion, the Sztejn court, and UCC Sections-114(2).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.133-156
• /
• 2011

This paper is to analyze the legality in which the fraud rule allow the issuer of L/C or a court to disrupt the payment to the beneficiary under the deferred payment credit when the nominated bank for deferred payment undertaking made prepayment or negotiation before the maturity date and fraud is identified to be involved. Since the function of commercial L/C is to provide absolute assurance of payment to a beneficiary, the fraud rule based on fraud exception has been known as the negative factor which lead to the disruption of "principle of independence & abstraction" under the commercial L/C transactions. As a result, the fraud rule is necessary to limit the activities of fraudsters, but its scope must be carefully circumscribed so as not to deny commercial utility to an instrument that exists to serve as an assurance of payment. But the fraud itself has not been firmly established because it is inherently pliable in its concept. There are numerous contents to describe the application of fraud to the L/C transactions as a standard such as egregious fraud, intentional fraud, L/C fraud(omitted here), flexible fraud, and constructive fraud. And so the standard applicable to the commercial transaction as the fraud rule would be high or low depending upon the various standards of fraud.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.257-287
• /
• 2000

Many problems and complaints have been caused by applying the UCP to the standby credit. To solve the problem, International Standby Practices were established. ISP and UCP are similar in that both of them generally regulate the transaction of credit. However, when the ISP is compared with the UCP, the following features are found : 1. In the UCP, when Force Majeure such as acts of God or strikes cause temporary work stoppage, the expiration date cannot be extended. In the ISP, the expiration date can be extended to 30 days afte the place for presentation re-opens for business in the same situation. 2. The UCP does not specify who the issuer of a document must be because there can be many issuers of documents. In the ISP, it is specified that all required documents are to be issued by the beneficiary. 3. In the UCP, compliance between presented documents is required. In the ISP, a discrepancy between presented documents is allowed. 4. In the UCP, if drawings and/or shipments are required by a credit to be made in instalments, and a required drawing/instalment is not made, the credit ceases to be available for any subsequent instalment. In ISP, there is no loss of effect and no influence on the right of beneficiaries, even in the same situation. 5. In the UCP, multiple transfers are not permitted, but partial transfers are. ISP states just the opposite. Multiple transfers are permitted, but partial transfers are not. 6 The UCP obligate each bank (issuer, confirming and nominated bank) to complete their review within a 'reasonable time' but not more than seven banking days. In the ISP, less than three business days is deemed to be not unreasonable and more than seven days is deemed to be unreasonable. 7. ISP, unlike UCP, recognizes that issuers and confirmers may spread their risk through syndication and participation of standby credits. However, the thing to remember is that the ISP should be reviewed carefully before application. If necessary, a partial addition or modifications can be made. Usually, the best advantage of the ISP is given to the issuers. A positive use of the ISP can be made by issuers but, applicants should consider using the UCP to the their rights and duties.