首  页  |  商法前沿论坛  |  法治广角  |  法治动态  |  商法研究所  |  商法大讲堂  |  案例争鸣  |  案例集锦  |  征稿启示
公司法治  |  证券法治    |  银行保险  |  法律实务  |  考试大观园  |  研究生园地  |  法律法规  |  法治书苑  |  网站编辑部
 今天是
[商法前沿论坛系列之八十二]预告:What Protection Do Directors Have      中国人民大学商法前沿系列讲座第八十二期:国际消费者权益保护的政策与法律 预告     
  您现在的位置:首页>>>法治广角>>法治广角
EXAMINING THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF LOST DOCUMENTS UNDER UCP600 ARTICLE 35
HEI Zuqing  Deputy General Manager in the International Business department at Bank of Tianjin (Tianjin, China).
上传时间:2017/3/6
浏览次数:261
字体大小:

Explanation of UCP600 Article 35

If compliant documents under an LC are presented by a nominated bank to the issuing bank as per LC instructions but are lost in transit, the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank at the risk of the applicant.

Responsibility of Issuing Bank

As there exists no contractual relationship between the nominated bank and the applicant in an LC, the nominated bank only has a right of recourse against the issuing bank. That is to say, if the compliant documents presented by the nominated bank are lost in transit, the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank without receipt of the original documents. As a result, the issuing bank may encounter unexpected risks.

The issuing bank should require evidence from the nominated bank in the form of presentation of copies of the documents by the nominated bank. If the LC is available with the nominated bank, the issuing bank is obliged to reimburse the nominated bank if the nominated has acted in accordance with the instructions provided in the LC. The issuing bank could request the nominated bank to provide evidence, such as a cover schedule and document copies, in order to determine if the original documents were presented as per the LC and complied. If a discrepancy is found upon its examination of the copies, the issuing bank could reject the presentation.

Responsibility of LC Applicant

Risks arising from lost in transit of documents presented under an LC should be borne by the LC applicant. The issuing bank has a right of recourse against the applicant. In this regard, if compliant documents are accepted, negotiated by a nominated bank, and presented to the issuing bank for reimbursement as per LC terms - even if the documents are lost in the transit - the issuing bank is still liable to honour and be reimbursed by the applicant.

Possible Areas of Improvement in UCP

1) When compliant documents are accepted by a nominated bank and presented to the issuing bank for payment but are lost in transit, the nominated bank should be asked to present copies of the documents. The issuing bank will process the copies, but UCP does not provide a solution on how to deal with the problem.
2) The issuing bank should bear the interest loss arising from the delay and has recourse against the LC applicant. UCP should provide a solution.

Other Views

While many might agree with these general conclusions, some have questioned whether it is correct to describe the right of the issuer against the applicant as a right of “recourse”.
Additionally, some disagree with the notion that the most important aspect of the nominated bank’s entitlement is that it has no privity with the applicant. Rather, it is that it was nominated to act by the issuer which bears a corresponding obligation to reimburse when it does so.
Nonetheless, the issuer is entitled to proof that complying documents were timely received and forwarded and subrogation as to any rights that the nominated bank has with respect to the documents and assignment of any rights that exist under them, whether from the nominated bank or the beneficiary as the case may be.
To probe these issues further, I raised points and engaged in a discussion with a leading LC expert who offered counterpoints.

The Right of the Issuing Bank against the Applicant

Point: UCP600 Article 37(d) implies that when an LC is issued, the applicant accepts to indemnify the issuing bank against effects that law and usage may have on its handling of the LC. The issuing bank has the right of recourse to the applicant against risks arising from loss in transit of documents presented under the LC.

Counterpoint: I agree that the issuer probably has an implied right to reimbursement from the UCP but would not rely on the UCP for reimbursement but on the implied contract between them or, more usefully, on an express contract. The UCP is not focused on the relationship between the issuer and the applicant. The right in favor of the issuer that arises from this relationship is one of reimbursement and not “recourse” (under Common Law) which arises on a negotiable instrument.

Privity between the Nominated Bank and the Applicant

Point: In my view, the applicant is not included as a party to the LC but instead is included in an agreement between the applicant and the issuing bank, such that the issuing bank is the only bank having a direct relationship with the applicant. As a result, the applicant is not involved in the process of LC handling, albeit the issuing bank could approach the applicant for waiver of discrepancies. Furthermore, the undertaking of the concerned banks (including the nominated bank) in an LC is not subject to claims or defenses by the applicant arising from its relationship with the issuing bank or beneficiary, an LC cannot be made available by a draft drawn on the applicant. Based on this reasoning, it is my idea that there is no contractual relationship between the nominated bank and the applicant in an LC.

Counterpoint: Absent a contractual relationship, there is no privity between a nominated bank and the applicant. There is no contractual relationship in most situations.

What’s Necessary to Prove Compliance

Point: Even if the reimbursement clause in an LC states “upon receipt of full sets documents in conformity with the L/C terms, we will effect payment as per your instruction” or similar effect, the reimbursement obligation under the LC is not subject to the receiving of documents by the issuing bank, but only to a compliant presentation being made to the nominated bank. If documents are lost in transit from the nominated bank to the issuing bank, in order to be reimbursed, the nominated bank should be asked to present copies. However, in the text of the commentary on UCP600 issued by ICC, it is stated that there is no obligation for a nominated bank to retain copies of documents that have been presented to it. I do not agree with this view of the ICC.

Counterpoint: While I agree with you about the absence of any obligation to copy documents, the nominated bank must prove that it has received the documents and forwarded them if the issuer demands proof. Were I advising the issuer, I would advise it to do so.

(责任编辑:张宇翔)

 
   【关闭窗口】
 
HEI Zuqing  EXAMINING THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONSEQUENCES OF LOST DOCUMENTS UNDER UCP600 ARTICLE 35

创网辞
    十月怀胎,一朝分娩。伴随着科学发展观的春风,在中国资本市场改革与发展的沃土上,《资本市场法治网》今天正式开通了!这是我国资本市场法治建设中的一件喜事。.. .[全文]
主编刘俊海教授简介
    中国人民大学法学院教授,博士生导师,中国人民大学商法研究所所长,民商法博士。兼任中国消费者协会副会长、中国法学会消费者权益保护法研究会副会长兼秘书长......[全文]
网站公告
 第五届“北仲杯”全国高校商事仲裁有奖征文大赛活动通知
 2016年度“虞恒商法论文奖学金”评选结果公示
 [商法前沿论坛系列之八十二]预告:What Protection Do Directors Have
学术动态
 2015年中国资本市场法治论坛:“打造投资者友好型证券法,推动资本市场治理现代化”论文征集公告[截至2015年7月2日]
 [图文]如何看待政府开发专车软件管市场?
 《中国证券民事赔偿案件司法裁判文书汇编》正式出版
 日本公司法修改的最新发展趋势
 经济立法的软肋
 刘俊海教授接受《人民日报》采访,就推进消费者权益保护事业、提振消费信心发表学术观点
热点文章
无热点文章!
 
中国资本市场法治评论
·征稿启事   ·目录
法治书苑
书名:劳动法与社会保障法:原理、材料与案例
作者:黎建飞
 劳动法与社会保障法:原理、材料与案例
 
 《新公司法的制度创新及投资兴业的热点
在线调查
 2013年11月12日中共十八届三中全会全体会议通过《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》,决定提出,扩大金融业对内对外开放,在加强监管前提下,允许具备条件的民间资本依法发起设立中小型银行等金融机构。您对这一决定如何看待?


本网站由中国人民大学刘俊海教授创办
建议使用IE4.0以上1024*768浏览器访问本站 京ICP备08104484号  网站管理
如果您有与网站相关的任何问题,请及时与我们联系(capitallaw@yeah.net),我们将做妥善处理!
版权所有©转载本网站内容,请注明转自"资本市场法治网"
欢迎您!第 位访问者!