【正文】 式對(duì)匯票 （ 該匯票的受票行不是被指定行 ） 及 /或單據(jù)的買入 。第二天（在信用證效期和交單期內(nèi)）議付行發(fā)來(lái)電報(bào)，由受益人出具的HEALTH CERT為其在該信用證項(xiàng)下提交的應(yīng)被審核的單據(jù)。（ Boston Hides amp。 named in the AWB as 39。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? 2）拼寫或打字錯(cuò)誤有可能導(dǎo)致歧義或產(chǎn)生實(shí)質(zhì)性影響的，則要結(jié)合語(yǔ)境、聯(lián)系提交的其他單據(jù)作出綜合判斷。在美國(guó)法上，根據(jù)1995修訂的 UCC 5117，申請(qǐng)人在償付開(kāi)證人后可代為取得開(kāi)證人對(duì)任何受益人、提示人、或被指定人的權(quán)利，其權(quán)利范圍如同申請(qǐng)人是對(duì)開(kāi)證人負(fù)有的義務(wù)之第二債務(wù)人。 ? 如果被認(rèn)定為一種代理關(guān)系 ：開(kāi)證行應(yīng)承擔(dān)由于單據(jù)遺失而導(dǎo)致的損失 。但其他單據(jù)，比如提單上顯示了正確的貨物明細(xì)數(shù)量，但沒(méi)有顯示貨物總的數(shù)量。 instead of 39。 ? 實(shí)務(wù)中須具體問(wèn)題具體分析，涉及到訴訟中法官的自由裁量權(quán)。 Animal Byproducts Corp.(1966 1 Lloyd’s Rep 367) ? MidAmerica Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents（ 2021 Ohio App. LEXIS 5402 [.]） 對(duì)于額外單據(jù)，銀行不應(yīng)審核，如果該額外單據(jù)不符，銀行不能以此拒付。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION DRAFT 2中的議付定義 : ? 在單據(jù)相符時(shí) ， 被指定行對(duì)受益人提交的匯票及 /或單據(jù)的付款或付款責(zé)任 。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD Banco Santander v. Banque Paribas ? 案情： ? 在提單日后 180天的延期付款信用證下保兌行憑一份款項(xiàng)讓渡書貼現(xiàn)了遠(yuǎn)期付款款項(xiàng)。s behalf at the time of presentation of the documents. Therefore, the court concluded that the beneficiary had not acted dishonestly and that no fraud had been mitted. ? it found no support for the submission that there exists in parallel with the fraud exception a second exception covering documents which are nullities to the knowledge of the bank at the time of payment through the beneficiary is innocent of any deception” Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Court of Appeal: ? Beneficiary39。 （ MidAmerica Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents ） Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 英國(guó)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 英國(guó)因信用證欺詐而給予禁令救濟(jì)的第一 宗判例出現(xiàn)在 1977年（ Edward Owen v. Barclays Bank)。 d. Causing damages to the plaintiff. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? The beneficiary admitted that it had known that the fibre content of the goods shipped did not match the description of the goods stated in the presented documents. The beneficiary also knew that the issuing bank would be liable to pay under the L/C if documents that appear on their face to ply with L/C terms were presented. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? The court therefore concluded that the beneficiary had intended to defraud the issuer and that a 5% discrepancy in fabric content was material to the underlying sales transaction. ? “ misrepresentation was material because the issuer would not have honored the credit had the misrepresentation not been made. “ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Western Surety Co. v. Bank of Southern Oregon ? Bank of Southern Oregon 開(kāi)立了兩份以Western Surety ，用來(lái)反擔(dān)保 Western Surety 函，該保函一份對(duì)應(yīng)于 Washington的工程，一份對(duì)應(yīng)于 Oregon的工程。 ? UCP中也沒(méi)有規(guī)定信用證欺詐的救濟(jì)。 ? Q： Applicant是否可以欺詐為由向法院申請(qǐng)支付該筆信用證下的付款 ？ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? Under New York law, the essential elements of a mon law fraud claim include: a. A material, false representation。 (8) his right to rely thereon。當(dāng)申請(qǐng)人發(fā)現(xiàn)檢驗(yàn)證不是其出具并簽署時(shí)，馬上要求開(kāi)證行拒絕付款。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD ? 開(kāi)證行的授權(quán) ? 對(duì)于被指定議付行而言，開(kāi)證行的授權(quán)為： 議付 根據(jù) UCP修訂稿中的 “ HONOR‖定義： ? 對(duì)于被指定即期付款行而言，開(kāi)證行的授權(quán)為： 即期付款 。 Energy Bank((1984)450 So 2d 1, aff‘d in part,rev‘d in part(1985)464 So 2d) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun KEY ISSUE TWO NEGOTIATION 議 付 MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 議付的定義？？？ ? UCP500 ? POSITION PAPER NO. 2 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 什么是 “ undertaking an obligation to make payment”——承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任？ ? 加拿大信用證專家李道安的觀點(diǎn) ? GARY COLLYER的觀點(diǎn) ? 馮敬德律師的觀點(diǎn) ? RABO BANK v BANK OF CHINA Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION UCP中 “ 對(duì)價(jià) ” 概念的法律基礎(chǔ) ——英美法中的 “ 對(duì)價(jià) ” 概念 ? 英美合同法中 的對(duì)價(jià)概念 ? 英美票據(jù)法中 的對(duì)價(jià)概念 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION ? 不可撤銷的允諾符合英美法中的對(duì)價(jià)概念，這正是“承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任”的淵源。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION 個(gè)人的一個(gè)建議 ? 將原先定義中的 “ 承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任 ” 改為“ 作出付款允諾并在該允諾到期日付款 ” ，即作出允諾和在允諾到期日（在信用證兌付到期日之前）付款兩個(gè)行為方才構(gòu)成議付。 ? ISBP 24： “ 不是不一致 ” 不等同于 “ 相同 ” ? 舉例：如果在商業(yè)發(fā)票上顯示 “ 60 boxes‖，而在產(chǎn)地證上顯示的卻是 “ 60 packages‖, 但兩份單據(jù)都顯示了發(fā)票號(hào)碼，那么根據(jù) R11和 ISBP，該發(fā)票和產(chǎn)地證應(yīng)被視為一致的，而若根據(jù) R251，則會(huì)因?yàn)?“ boxes‖與 “ packages‖在細(xì)節(jié)上不同而被視為不是一致的。（ CASE STUDY 229） Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? Q15：（ ICC R209） ? a) Invoice shows the postal district code under beneficiary39。. Copyright2021 Cheng Jun STANDARD FOR EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS ? Q16： The credit calls for a ?CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION OF SHOP TESTING?.提交的單據(jù)顯示名稱 “ ?CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETITION OF SHOP TESTING?.（ ICC R442 ） ? Q17： 受益人證明顯示承運(yùn)船為 “ SELLAND Endurance 180E‖,而不是提單上顯示的“ SEALAND Endurance 180E‖。此時(shí)，單據(jù)是否相符將決定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的分?jǐn)?。申?qǐng)人償付之后申請(qǐng)人可代位取得向被指定行的訴賠權(quán)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun KEY ISSUE FOUR DOCUMENTS LOSS (單據(jù)丟失 ) Copyright2021 Cheng Jun DOCUMENTS LOSS ? UCP500第 16條： “ 銀行對(duì)由于 … 單據(jù)在傳遞中發(fā)生延誤及／或遺失所造成的后果， … 概 不負(fù)責(zé)。Chan39。該港口名在烏克蘭有兩處，另幾處分別在阿薩拜疆、卡薩克斯坦和烏茲別克斯坦。 第三，注意規(guī)定的是 “ 不一致將視為不符 ” ，而沒(méi) 有明確 “ 一致 ” 的要求。 “ AGREEING TO ADVANCE FUNDS”后，被指定議付行是否已成為合格的議付行，從而享有欺詐例外抗辯的豁免權(quán)？ Copyright2021 Cheng Jun NEGOTIATION DRAFT 4中的議付定義： ? 對(duì) “ negotiate”和 “ negotiation”定義作了合并，同時(shí)將 “ if the credit is available by negotiation”刪除了，其他并無(wú)實(shí)質(zhì)上的改動(dòng)。 Copyright2021 Cheng Jun LC FRAUD 可參看下列判例： ? Banque Nationale de Paris v. Credit Agricole IndosuezBanque 20214 SLR 254 (27 June 2021) [Singapore]； Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal, 20212 SLR 1 [Singapore] ? Bank of Joliet v. Firstar Bank Milwaukee, . No. 96 C 1145, 1997 . Dist. LEXIS 15384 (. Ill. 26 September 1997)； ? Industrial Bank of Korea v. BNP Paribas 2021 DA 68266 (Supreme Court, 2nd Div. 2021) [Korea] ? Federal Bank Ltd. v. VM Jog Engineering Ltd. [2021] 4 LRI 204 (Sup. Ct. of India) [India] ? United City v. Punjab Bank（ 1982） V2 Lloyd?S 法院一致觀點(diǎn)：被指定議付行在不參與信用證欺詐或不 知曉信用證欺詐的情況下，其對(duì)開(kāi)證行的索償權(quán)不受信 用證欺詐例外抗辯的影響。 (e) In the case of a demand under a counterguarantee,