DCW maintains a list of recently-decided court cases involving commercial letters of credit, demand guarantees, and other trade finance instruments.
We’re excited to announce an exclusive new benefit for DCW subscribers—select IIBLP eBooks are now included as part
Important login update We’ve heard from a few users about login issues, so here’s a quick guide to
UCP600 interpretation challenges arise as banks often misconstrue article purposes. Beneficiaries risk losing payment guarantees due to misinterpretation during credit-complying presentations
When it comes to interpretation of UCP600 articles, one of the biggest issues is banks’ misunderstanding of the key purpose of various articles and beneficiaries putting themselves in positions where they lose their payment guarantee on their failure to make a credit-complying presentation due to misinterpretation.
In this regard, one of the most common dangers for a beneficiary is needlessly losing the protections provided under UCP600 Article 35 which is one of the backbone articles of these practice rules.
A very useful case study for illustrating one of the basic protections UCP600 provides is addressed in ICC Official Opinion TA926rev (2022).
In the first of his series of DCW articles on major issues surrounding potential revision of UCP, ICC Banking Commission Senior Technical Advisor Dave Meynell examines the concept of negotiation.
Letter of credit cases can reveal a great deal about how the industry's practice rules and standards are viewed and interpreted by the courts.
When issuing banks insert complex reimbursement terms and self-serving conditions into their credits, it distorts the purpose of the product, causes problems for confirming banks, and drives exporters away from using LCs.
DCW Editorial Note: This previously unpublished material reflects the thinking and writing of Professor James E. Byrne over the period
Receive updates on the latest DCW releases
