The credit in question was issued by Muslim Commercial Bank and was subject to the 1993 revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 500). UCP 500, Art. 5 strives for the ideal by requiring (a) generally that instructions for the issuance of a credit must be “complete and precise ” and (b) specifically that "[a]ll instructions for the issuance of a Credit and the Credit itself…must state precisely the document(s) against which payment, acceptance or negotiation is to be made”.2 It also enjoins banks to discourage any attempt to include excessive detail in the credit. It does not, however, specify the consequences of non-compliance. In Credit Agricole, the credit, although subject to UCP 500, did not comply with Art. 5, resulting in a dispute as to which documents had to be tendered to trigger payment.

Two sections of the credit were relevant. The first, headed “DOCUMENTS REQUIRED ARE MARKED (X) BELOW”, contained six boxes, four of which were marked with a cross, each with a type of document described. The documents so mentioned did not include a weight and measurement list or certificate of origin. The second, headed “Special Conditions”, comprised “a hotchpotch or amalgam”3 of 18 clauses of an assorted nature, some relating to the credit and others to the underlying contract. Clause 9 stated as follows: “Original documents along with eight copies each of invoice, packing list, weight and measurement list, Bill of Lading and certificate of origin should be sent to us by Courier at the cost of the beneficiary.” Documents tendered under the credit were accepted by Credit Agricole, the confirming bank, but then rejected by Muslim Commercial Bank on the ground that they did not include weight and measurement lists or certificates of origin as required by cl. 9 but not by the “documents required” section. The Court of Appeal4 held that this rejection was wrongful.

The starting point was the duty of banks under UCP 500, Art. 13(a) to examine all documents stipulated in the credit to determine whether they comply with the terms of the credit. This led Sir Christopher Staughton to distinguish three possible categories of documents.5 First, there were the stipulated documents under Art. 13(a). These were also the Art. 5(b) documents against which payment is to be made. Secondly, there might be other documents, not mentioned in the credit but included on presentation. These would fall within the second paragraph of Art. 13(a) and accordingly would not be examined by banks and would either be returned to the presenter or passed on without responsibility.

---

25