As the importance of documentary credits in modern international trade is difficult to overstate, a new, comprehensive and erudite commentary on the relevant law is to be welcomed. Documentary Credits by Raymond Jack is an accessible yet detailed work by a practitioner who combines a profound academic knowledge with an excellent practical understanding. The treatment of the subject is by way of a logical progression through the opening and operation of documentary credits. A chapter on performance bonds and similar instruments of guarantee is justifiably included, and the text concludes with a perceptive discussion of relevant conflict of laws issues. The appendices reproduce the 1983 revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, the ICC’s Standard Documentary Credit Forms, standard forms used by the Midland Bank and some precedents of pleadings. The text is lucid, thoughtful and well structured. Difficult areas are addressed with care and clarity. The discussion of fraud gives due prominence to the problem of establishing a cause of action against a correspondent bank and the effectively insurmountable hurdle of the balance of convenience when seeking to enjoin any bank from paying under a documentary credit. It is also interesting to see a defence of the often criticized decision in The Lariza [1988] A.C. 583. Attention to detail is evidenced by the pointing out of the trap contained in Art. 52 of the UCP where the month is February. Furthermore, where appropriate, the reader is supplied succinctly with background information, for instance, on the reason for issuing sets of bills of lading.

Of course, numerous problems relating to documentary credits remain unresolved by either the UCP or the courts. In the Preface, the author states his intention to address such issues, and the work is much enriched by his cogent opinions. A topical example of this is provided by his largely accurate anticipation of the views of the Court of Appeal in Banker’s Trust Co. v. State Bank of India [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 443, [1992] LMCLQ 169 (the exception being with respect to the form of the communication of rejection under Art. 16(d)). On the other hand, it is difficult to accept the author’s view that the decision in Borthwick v. Bank of New Zealand (1900) 6 Com. Cas. 1 would be the same today. There, the credit required simply an “insurance policy”. One was tendered and accepted, but the issuing bank was held liable on the basis that the policy was incompatible in coverage with business practice in the New Zealand frozen meat trade. Today, Art. 38(b) of the UCP provides that banks will accept insurance documents as presented in the absence of “specific stipulations” in the credit. In addition, Commercial Banking v. Jalsard [1973] A.C. 279 recommends a literalist approach to documentary requirements, and in Rayner v. Hambro [1943] 1 K.B. 37 the fact that the terms used in the bill of lading were universally understood in the trade to mean the same as those used in the credit did not redeem the bill in the eyes of the Court of Appeal. The author also suggests (para. 8.102) that a bank might reject an insurance document containing an exceptionally large franchise or excess clause, despite the clear drafting