查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 論信用狀獨立性原則的抗辯
- 論信用狀的Negotiation
- 論擔保信用狀
- The Fraud Exception to the Principle of Independence--English, American and German Law of Performance Bonds, Standby Credits and Bank Guarantees
- 試析美國統一商法典信用狀新篇的主要內容
- ISP 98與UCP 500簡要比較
- 禁制令之衡酌--美國案例
- 信用狀統一慣例(UCP 500)有關運送單據規定事項之探討
- 信用狀統一慣例(UCP500)與國際標準銀行實務(ISBP)
- 從蛋糕專利訴訟談專利範圍之建構與初期禁制令之准駁
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論信用狀獨立性原則的抗辯=Defense to the Independence Principle of Letter of Credit |
---|---|
作 者 | 康蕙芬; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 16:2 2004.12[民93.12] |
頁 次 | 頁205-250 |
分類號 | 563.25 |
關鍵詞 | 信用狀統一慣例; 獨立性原則; 詐欺抗辯; 禁制令; 美國統一商法第五篇; 違法抗辯; Independence principle; Fraud defense; Injunction; UCC5; UCP500; Illegal defense; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 信用狀雖然係依據基礎契約所開立,但是它在本質上與基礎契約係屬分立的交易,因此銀行與基礎契約全然無闕,也不受基礎契約的影響,只要受益人提示的單據符合信用狀,銀行就有付款的義務,銀行或申請人不得援用基礎契約的抗辯拒絕付款或補償,此即信用狀的獨立性原則(independence principle)。 然而此一獨立性並非絕對,基於公共秩序與誠信原則的考量,英、美、德等國法律均允許銀行以「基礎契約的詐欺行為」為理由,提出對信用狀獨立性原則的詐欺抗辯(fraud defense),拒絕對信用狀付款。但是有鑒於詐欺抗辯在國際銀行界和各國司法界爭議仍大,因此信用狀統一慣例(UCP)並未就此部分做出規定,由各國圈內法自行規定。除了美國在其國內法——統一商法第五篇(UCC5),有專門針對詐欺抗辯的成文規定,其他各國多是以判例確定。 除了已形成共識的詐欺抗辯,近年來也有部分國家的法院以基礎契約嚴重違法為由,判定銀行有權拒絕對信用狀付款,形成對信用狀獨立性的另一項抗辯—違法抗辯(illegal defense)。 由於信用狀抗辯原則具有很高的不確定性,對於是否構成詐欺或違法,法官具有相當的自由裁量權,因此,在面對禁制令的申請案件時,法官必須謹慎行事,避免濫用,方能維護信用狀機制的正常運作。 |
英文摘要 | The independence principle, which is one of the special rules of the letter of credit, insulates the letter of credit from disputes over the performance of collateral agreements and allows the letter of credit to function as a swift and certain payment mechanism. There is, however, one defense to the independence principle - fraud defense. According to the fraud defense, fraud in the underlying contract may sometimes act to destroy the independence of the letter of credit and to relieve the issuer of the credit from its obligation to honor the beneficiary. Although fraud is a well-recognized defense to the independence principle, there is a second defense – illegal defense should also be recognized. In proper circumstances, illegality in the underlying transaction should relieve the issuer from its obligation of payment. The defense based on material fraud or criminal illegality would not have prejudicial repercussions on international trade, because this remedy would comply both with equity and with commercial sense. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。