【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 es that banks 39。must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in pliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit39。.The banks39。 responsibilityis Limited to the ostensible conformity of the , it must be emphasised that the doctrine of strict pliance requires a bank to ensure only that the documents appear to be consistent with the terms of the credit(art 14 of UCP 500), and thus give rise neither to a duty to ascertain the conformity of the goods, nor an obligation to investigate analleged fraud.39。Second, the plexity ot international trade means that the banks as agents of the buyer or seller are not able to understand and appreciate all technical terms(some of which are interchangeable)or the technical differences between goods of similar functions or nature.(6 marks)（2）The seller solves the problem between them in accordance with their contract.(2 marks) in State A decides to go into the catalog sales business in State countries are parties to the purchases a mailing list from Ace Credit Card list has the names and addresses of 500,000 persons owning Ace credit cards in State B,and Retailer uses this to prepare mailing receives a catalog addressed to him personally from catalog describes various types of widgets and gives prices for each the retailer made an offer to sell the widgets?If John accepts,will there be a binding contract under the CISG? No,the retailer has not made an offer.(2 marks)Under art 14(1)of the CISG,A proposal for concluding a contract addressed to one or more specific persons constitutes an offer if it is sufficiently definite and indicates the intention of the offeror to be bound in case of proposal is sufficiently definite if it indicates the goods and expressly or implicitly fixes or makes provision for determining the quantity and the to the facts,it is an invitation to treat.(4 marks)(2)No,if John accepts, there will not be a binding contract under the is an offer.(2 marks) received a letter in her mail on January 1 offering to sell Buyer 5,000 widgets for $20 ?s letter closed with the following statement:I know that this offer is so attractive that I will assume that you accept it unless I hear otherwise by January 31.”Buyer did not shipped the widgets on February are Buyer?s responsibilities under the CISG?First the buyer has rights to refuse goods.(2 marks)After receiving the offer of 50 ,000widgets for $20 apiece, Buyer did not reply, which rejected the offer.(2 marks)Under art 18(1)of the CISG,Silence or inactivity does not in itself amount to acceptance.(2 marks)Therefore, there was no contract between Seller and Buyer.(2 marks) and Seller entered into a contract governed by the CISG for Seller to deliver a sophisticated puter to Buyer by January was late in delivering the machine,so Buyer wired Seller on January to take delivery of the that it arrives by February 1.”Seller delivers the puter on February 5,but Buyer refuses to accept it and declares that the contract is avoided because Seller failed to hand over the puter before the February 1 date specified in the January 2 Buyer and Seller agree that there has not been a fundamental Buyer able to avoid the contract under these circumstances? Yes,the buyer is able to avoid the contract.(2 marks)Under CISG,a buyer may avoid a contract if either(1)the seller mits a fundamental breach or(2)the buyer gives the seller a Nachfrist notice and the seller rejects it or does not perform within the period it buyer’s Nachfrist notice is the fixing of “an additional period of time of reasonable length for performance by the seller of his obligations.”.(4 marks)The period must be definite,and the obligation to perform within that period must be the Nachfrist period has run,or once the fundamental breach bees clear,the buyer has a reasonable time in which to avoid the contract.(2 marks) Company in Canada agreed to sell 10,000 gallons of maple syrup to Dee Company in Company arranged for a letter of credit with its bank in credit required payment on the presentation of a bill of lading and an inspection certificate issued by a quality control pany,Vigilance,Inc.,of Company produced both the bill and the inspection Copenhagen bank refused to pay because the inspection certificate stated that“based on a sample taken from 5 gallons,the maple syrup is not of the kind ordered.”The bank argued that the certificate,on its face,did not certify the regularity of the entire the bank correct in refusing payment?The bank was correct.(2 marks)Because The main issue is whether the banks are liable to the applicant when the mercial documents or bills of exchange which appear to be consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit are not 13 of UCP 500 requires that banks 39。must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in pliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit39。.The banks39。 responsibilityis Limited to the ostensible conformity of the , it must be emphasised that the doctrine of strict pliance requires a bank to ensure only that the documents appear to be consistent with the terms of the credit(art 14 of UCP 500), and thus give rise neither to a duty to ascertain the conformity of the goods, nor an obligation to investigate an alleged fraud.39。 Second, the plexity of international trade means that the banks as agents of the buyer or seller are not able to understand and appreciate all technical terms(some of which are interchangeable)or the technical differences between goods of similar functions or nature.(6 marks) January 1,Seller sent a letter to Buyer offering to sell to Buyer 5,000 widgets for $25 letter also stated:This offer is binding and irrevocable until February 1.”O(jiān)n January 5,prior to Buyer?s receipt of the letter,seller called Buyer on the telephone and left the follow