查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 論信用狀單據審查的實質與程序要件--以Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China為例
- 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
- 論信用狀獨立性原則的抗辯
- 論信用狀的Negotiation
- 從信用狀統一慣例UCP600及國際擔保函慣例ISP98論擔保信用狀之法律性質
- 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
- 美國統一商法典第五篇信用狀
- 淺談國際擔保函慣例ISP98
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 論信用狀單據審查的實質與程序要件--以Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corp. v. Bank of China為例=The Standard for Examination of Documents and the Procedure for Rejection of Documents under Letters of Credit--A Case Review "Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corporation v. Bank of China" |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 康蕙芬; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
| 卷 期 | 17:2 民94.12 |
| 頁 次 | 頁297-350 |
| 分類號 | 563.25 |
| 關鍵詞 | 嚴格一致; 實質一致; 拒付通知; 信用狀統一慣例; 美國統一商法; 國際擔保函慣例; Strict compliance; Substantial compliance; Notice of dishonor; UCP500; UCC 5; ISP98; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 信用狀交易的特性之一即「憑單據付款」,銀行應否付款的關鍵在於,受益人所提示的單據在表面文義上是否與信用狀的規定相符。不過,單據的文字記載究應如何才算與信用狀相符,各國際慣例均缺乏明確具體的標準,實務上,除了國際間長久以來所奉行的審單標準---「嚴格一致原則」之外,也發展出其他的標準,例如實質一致標準、雙重標準等,各國銀行與法院往往依據其本國商業環境、法律規定、類似判例與個案情況等因素決定所適用的標準。 本文以美國法院近年一宗判例出發,探討國際信用狀審單標準的演進,以及各國際慣例的規定,同時分析我國相關案例所採認的標準,進而提出結論:與其鉅細靡遺的訂定缺乏彈性的制式標準,不如採用實務導向的簡要標準,例如「考量整體單據」、「遵循國際標準銀行實務」與「明顯的繕打錯誤不構成瑕疵」等,以充分發揮信用狀應有的彈性與效能。 除實質面之外,本文同時就程序面探討銀行審查單據應遵循的規範,尤其是銀行行使拒付權利時應符合的相關慣例規定。為避免爭議,本文認為程序面的規定不同於對審單標準的要求,應儘可能明確、具體且完整,加強對銀行的形式約束,以調和各方當事人的權利義務。 |
| 英文摘要 | Strict compliance, coupled with the autonomy principle, represent the major principles of letter of credit law. Since its formulation, strict compliance has provided the yardstick for determining whether or not the beneficiary has complied with the terms of the letter of credit. In today’s global marketplace, the application of the doctrine can lead to results that would, on many occasions, be regarded as both unfair and unsound. In response, the business world, aided in some instances by the court system, has pursued the following avenues to counteract certain unfavorable consequences of strict compliance: (1) the letter of credit documents are to be viewed as a whole; (2) obvious misprints and meaningless trivialities are to be dismissed; (3) compliance of documents is to be determined by international standard banking practice; (4) discrepancies unstated in a rejection notice are to be treated as waived. On the other hand, if failing to act in according with the requirements for communicating notice of dishonor, that is, timely, sufficiently specific and appropriately dispatch notice of rejection, the issuing bank shall be precluded from claiming that the documents are not in compliance with the terms and conditions of the credit. The procedural rules surrounding dishonor of presentation also temper the effect of the rule of strict compliance. In the analysis of Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corporation v. Bank of China, has proved that it is a debatable case correctly decided. The court’s reference to standard international practice as expressed in interpretation of the UCP (for example, the Decisions of the ICC Banking Commission) for principles by which to access the several alleged discrepancies in the documents is a proper application of the letter of credit standard of compliance established in UCP Art. 13. The court’s conclusion that the Aug. 11 Telex was not a notice refusal also is in full accord with UCP Art. 14 and international standard letter of credit practice. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。