DC Insight

In this issue, we publish the last of our special sections containing reactions to the new UCP. In it we present feedback on the rules from a lawyer, a trader, a representative from SWIFT, a shipping association and - to show we're not prejudiced - a banker. All have their own take on the rules, but on the whole they're pretty upbeat, particularly about the new clarity of language in UCP 600. Brooke Wunnicke, our lawyer contributor, is pleased that the role of lawyers in the drafting process was minimal. She quotes a legal colleague's somewhat jaundiced view of his profession: "Too much lawyer involvement in preparing the UCP 500 was the root of the increase in problems relating to its use."

The views of Emily Comyn, who represents a shipping association, are more nuanced, but even she is constrained to say that "the clearer and more consistent wording of UCP 600 is a marked improvement on its predecessor."

Only time will tell whether the apparent clarity in the text will result in fewer discrepancies and disputes. Kim Christensen, our banker contributor, puts it all in perspective: "[The rules] seem to be improved, but everyone working with L/Cs realizes that the devil lies in the details."

On the eve of the ICC Banking Commission's meeting in Singapore, we asked a distinguished Hong Kong Lawyer, King-Tak Fung, to report on a recent Asian court case on the UCP. The case, Total Energy Asia Limited v Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited [2006], provided the court's answer to an intriguing question: can a rejection notice be given by telephone?