Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
THE UNIFORM CUSTOMS AND PRACTICE FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS (UCP): THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND THE CURRENT REVISIONS
EP Ellinger *
This article deals with the development of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (“the UCP”). It traces the history of the guidelines from their promulgation by the International Chamber of Commerce in 1931 to the 2007 Revision (“UCP–600”), which is to come into effect on 1 July 2007. The emphasis is on a comparison of this new Revision with UCP–500, which have been in effect since 1993. The article further discusses the construction of the UCP and whether they are to be treated as an independent source of law binding by reason of a general commercial usage or as a set of contractual terms. Prominence is given to the position in common law countries but there is a comparison with certain doctrines prevailing in civilian jurisdictions.
1. BACKGROUND
A documentary credit comes into existence in the context of a commercial transaction which normally involves at least four parties: the applicant (who is usually an importer), the issuing bank, the correspondent bank and the beneficiary (an exporter or provider of services). The letter of credit (“l/c”) itself constitutes the bargain between the banks and the beneficiary. Both an irrevocable credit and a confirmed credit are treated for all practical purposes as a binding contract. It follows that, for purposes such as the assessment of damages in cases of non-performance, the principles applicable are those of the law of contract.1
The same general principles of law are used to construe the terms of a documentary credit and the basic rights of the parties.
In common law countries, the most important statutory law in point is Art 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States (the “UCC”). In other common law systems, the general principles and doctrines are based on case law.2
Another, general, source of the law of letters of credit is international banking practice and the usages of international trade.3
* Emeritus Professor, National University of Singapore; Consultant, Rajah & Tann, Singapore.
1. For an illustration, see Ozalid Group Export Ltd
v. African Continental Bank
[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 231, where the general principles on the award of damages were applied to a breach by the issuing bank of the payment terms of a letter of credit.
2. For works in point see Benjamin’s Sale of Goods
, 7th edn (2006) ch 23; Sir R Jack and H Malik, Documentary Credits
, 3rd edn (2001); R King (ed), H Gutteridge and M Megrah, Law of Bankers’ Commercial Credits
, 8th edn (2001).
3. By contrast, the practices of individual banks are in-house usages. They cannot in themselves form the basis of a general trade usage or practice.
THE UCP FOR DOCUMENTARY CREDITS
153