UCP600 新规定 英文版.docx

UCP600 新规定 英文版.docx

《UCP600 新规定 英文版.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《UCP600 新规定 英文版.docx（32页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

UCP600新规定英文版

UNIVERSITYOFMANCHESTER

LLM

INTERNATIONALBUSINESSLAW

PAYMENTININTERNATIONALSALES

PART2

THELEGALSTATUSOFTHEU.C.P.

SomewritersinsomejurisdictionshavetakenthelinethatsogenerallyusedaretheUCPthattheyconstitute

（1）acodificationofusageand

（2）auniformlawofinternationalcharacteroperativeofitsownforcetoallcontractsoflettersofcredit-seeEismann,BontouxandRowe‘LeCreditdocumentairedanslecommerceexterieure（1985）.Thesearebigandboldassertions.OnthefirstpointProfessorKozolchykin..disagreespointingoutthat‘ThetextoftheUCPisneithersystematicnorcomprehensiveenoughtowarrantthelegalcharacterisationof‘code’.ProfessorGoodeendorsesthisview.

OnthesecondpointthattheUCPautomaticallyapplytoallcontractsoflettersofcreditthetraditionalapproachofthecommonlawisthatthetermsoftheUCPonlyapplyifeitherexpresslyorbyimplicationtheyareincorporatedintotheparticularcontract,andindeedthisistheapproachtakenbyArticle1oftheUCPitself.Goodehoweverpointsouttheparticularcircumstancesoftheruleswhichwillalmostinvariablyleadtotheconclusionthatthereisanintentiontoincorporatetheminaparticularcontract.

（1）Theyrepresentusageswhichhavegainedinternationalacceptanceamongbankerssothatinthemselvestheyarestrongevidenceofbankingcustomandpractice,whichofitselfwillusuallybetakentobeimpliedlyincorporatedintothecontract.Sometimes,ofcourse,theUCPseekstointroduceamoreconvenientpracticeratherthansimplystatetraditionalcustom（theyarerevisedfromtimetotimetoachievethis）butoncethenewrulehasbeeninplaceforayearortwooftimeitcanbereasonablybeassumed,intheabsenceofevidencetothecontrarythatthepracticewillhavebecomebroadlyuniformastheresultoftherule,sothatifattherelevanttimetheruleshavebeeninoperationforareasonableperiod,theywillhavebecomeindicativeofprevailingpractice.

（2）Goodegoeson;

‘Butwecanreasonablygoastagefurtherand,insteadoftreatingtheUCPmerelyasevidenceofusageimpliedlyincorporatedintothecontract,regardthemasdirectlyincorporatedbyimplicationintothecontractonthebasisthattheiradoptionisasmuchamatterofcoursethatthepartiesmustbetakentohaveintendedtocontractwithreferencetothemevenifthecontractdoesnotstatethisintermsandevenifoneoftheparties（e.g.anon-bankingpartysuchasbuyerorseller）wasnotawareoftheUCP’.

OnceincorporatedunderEnglishlawtheRulesbecomepartofthetermsofthecontractandmust,therefore,bereconciledwiththeotherterms（especiallytheexpressterms）andapplysubjectto

（1）mandatoryEnglishlegislationand

（2）themandatoryrulesofEnglishcontractlaw.InshortunderEnglishlawtheysimplyoperateasatermofthecontractsubjecttoEnglishlawgenerally.

IndiraCarralsohassomepointstomakeonthegeneralrelevanceoftheUCPprovisionsoncasescomingbeforetheEnglishcourts（p.476）;

LackofincorporationoftheUCPintoacontractofcarriage‘forthemostpart,willnoteffecttherightsandliabilitiesofthepartiesgreatlyunderthecredit,sinceEnglishcourtsdotakemercantilecustomsandpracticesintoaccount.Moreover,therulesoftheUCP,forthemostpart,reflectthoseofcommonlaw,apartfromafewdifferences.Forinstance,underArt37oftheUCP,‘thedescriptionofthegoodsinthecommercialinvoicemustcorrespondexactlywiththedescriptioninthecredit’.Thereis,however,nocorrespondingrequirementatcommonlawsince,itseems,acommercialinvoiceneednotcontainadescriptionofthegoods.TheUCPalsoallowscertaintolerancesinquantity,creditamountandunitpriceinArt39,whichisnotthecaseincommonlaw.SincetheUCPdoesnothavetheforceoflawinEngland,itwillapplysubjecttoanyexpressterms.IfanexpressterminthecontractcontradictstheUCPterms,theformerprevails.AsMustillJ.statedinRoyalBankofScotlandplcvCassadiRisparmiodelleProvincieLombard.

“....itmustberecognisedthat[theUCP]termsdonotconstituteastatutorycode.Astheirtitlemakesclear,theycontainaformulationofcustomsandpractices,whichthepartiestoaletterofcreditcanincorporateintotheircontractsbyreference.Ifitisfoundthatthepartieshaveexplicitlyagreedsuchaterm,thenthesearchneedgonofurther,sinceanycontraryprovisioninUCPmustyieldtotheparties’expressedintention.”

TheUCP,itmustbeadded,isnotcomprehensive.Itdoesnot,forinstance,addresstheeffectoffraudorillegalityonthedocumentarycreditarrangement.

NATUREANDENFORCEABILITYOFTHEBANK’SPROMISE

Inbankingusageandcustomtheletterofcreditbecomesbindingontheissuingbankonissueandontheconfirmingbankonconfirmation.ThereisnodecidedjudicialcaseonthisbutthisisGoode’sviewandisgenerallyacceptedbyotherwriters.Ofcourseiftheletterofcreditisrejectedbythesellerbecauseitdoesnotconformtothecontractofsale,itceasestohaveanyeffect.

AtheoreticalproblemarisesundertraditionalrulesofEnglishlawwhichrequirethatsomethingbeprovidedbytheotherpartytothecontractforthepromisetopayhim（technicallycalledconsideration）butthesellerprovidesnothingtothebanksinreturnforhiscredit.Varioustheorieshavebeenputforwardtotrytobridgethegapandtofind（create）aconsiderationbuttheyareallartificialandunconvincing.AsGoodepointsout;

‘Thedefectsinthesevarioustheoriesshowtheundesirabilityoftryingtoforceallcommercialinstrumentsanddevicesintoastrait-jacketoftraditionalrulesoflaw.ProfessorEllinger（DocumentaryLettersofCreditp.122）hasrightlyarguedthattheletterofcreditshouldbetreatedasasuigenerisinstrumentembodyingapromisewhichbymercantileusageisenforceablewithoutconsideration.ProfessorKozolchyk（LettersofCreditpp.138-143）takesthedescriptionastagefurther,treatingaletterofcreditasanewtypeofmercantilecurrencyembodyinganabstractpromiseofpayment,which,likethebillofexchange,possessesahigh,thoughnottotal,immunityfromattackonthegroundofbreachofdutyofsellertobuyer’.

FUNDAMENTALCHARACTERISTICSOFLETTERSOFCREDIT

Carrp.478rightlyemphasisestwocharacteristicsasfundamentaltolettersofcreditinestablishingtheirimportanceininternationalcommercenamely;

（1）theautonomyoflettersofcredit;and

（2）thedoctrineofstrictcompliance.

Theautonomyoflettersofcreditwillbeconsideredfirst.

THECREDITISAUTONOMOUS

ThepointofthecreditistocreateaguaranteedassuranceofpaymenttothesellersothattheycreateanabstractpaymentobligationindependentofanddetachedfromtheunderlyingcontractofsalebetweenthesellerandbuyerANDALSOdetachedfromthebanker/customercontractbetweenthebuyerandtheissuingbank.InGoode’swords;

‘Itisthusacardinalruleofdocumentarycreditsthattheconditionsofthebank’sdutytopayaretobefoundexclusivelyinthetermsoftheletterofcredit,andthattherightanddutytomakepaymentdonotinanywaydependonperformancebythesellerofhisobligationsunderthecontractofsale.Ingeneral,therefore,abreachofthoseobligationsbytheseller,e.g.byshipmentofgoodswhichfailtocorrespondtothecontractdescription,areofunsatisfactoryqualityorfallshortofthecontractquantity,doesnotentitlethebuyertoinstructthebanktowithholdpaymentunderthecreditifthetermsoftheletterofcredithavebeenfullycompliedwith.’

ThisisexpresslyspelledoutbytheUCPArt3（a）.Article3（a）expresslyprovides;

‘Credits,bytheirnature,areseparatetransactionsfromthesalesorothercontract（s）onwhichtheymaybebasedandbanksareinnowayconcernedwithorboundbysuchcontract（s）,evenifanyreferencewhatsoevertosuchcontract（s）isincludedinthecredit.Consequently,theundertakingofabanktopay,acceptandpaydraft（s）ornegotiateand/ortofulfilanyotherobligationunderthecredit,isnotsubjecttoclaimsordefencesbytheapplicantresultingfromhisrelationshipwiththeissuingbankorthebeneficiary.’

Thesameprincipleiswellestablishedatcommonlaw-seeHamzehMalesandSonsvBritishImexIndustriesLtd.[1958]2QB127;UnitedCityMerchant（Investments）LtdvRoyalBankofCanada[1983]1AC168atpp.182-3.IntheHamzehMalesCaseJenkinsL.J.pointedoutthepracticalnecessityforthis.Hesaid（p.129）;

‘Avendorofgoodssellingagainstaconfirmedletterofcreditissellingundertheassurancethatnothingwillpreventhimfromreceivingtheprice.Thatisofnomeanadvantagewhengoodsmanufacturedinonecountryarebeingsoldinanother.Itis,furthermore,tobeobservedthatvendorsareoftenresellinggoodsboughtfromthirdparties.Whentheyaredoingthat,andwhentheyarebeingpaidbyaconfirmedletterofcredit,theirpracticeis...tofinancethepaymentsnecessarytobemadetotheirsuppliersagainsttheletterofcredit.Thatsystemoffinancingtheseoperations,asIseeit,wouldbreakdowncompletelyifadisputeasbetweenthevendorandthepurchaserwastohavetheeffectof‘freezing’,ifImayusethatexpression,thesuminrespectofwhichtheletterofcreditwasopened.’

TheemphasisplacedbytheEnglishcourtsontheautonomyoftheletterofcreditiswellillustratedbytheCourtofAppealdecisioninPowerCuberInternationalLtd.vNationalBankofKuwait[1981]1WLR1233.HerePowerCuber,aUScompany,soldmachinerytoafirminKuwait.ThebuyerarrangedtheissueofanirrevocableletterofcreditinfavourofthesellerbytheNational