Article

After UCP 600 appeared, the UCP Drafting Group set itself a daunting task. That was to produce a Commentary that would explain why and how certain changes were made in the rules, why, in other cases, no change was made and why some UCP 600 provisions that appear to be new are, in reality, similar to provisions that were part of UCP 500. This turned out to be a tougher job than the Group anticipated. Gary Collyer, who chaired the effort, admitted that "writing this Commentary proved to be more difficult than drafting the rules themselves."

There are reasons for this. As explained in the Commentary Introduction, a number of the UCP 600 articles cannot be read in isolation and are inextricably linked to other articles in the rules. They also contain wording that appeared in more than one article in UCP 500. As one example, article 14 in UCP 600 contains wording that appeared in eight different articles of UCP 500.

What becomes clear on reading the Commentary is that one of the major tasks in writing UCP 600 was to reorganize the UCP to ensure that it was coherent and that subjects were taken up in their logical order. For practitioners, this takes some getting used to, as the articles in the next section demonstrate.

On the whole, one has to give the Drafting Group high marks for a Commentary that explains, in clear language, the reasoning behind the changes. It is more than a simple comparison of one set of rules with another. It is, in fact, an insight into the thinking that went into the revision.

The Drafting Group wisely structured the Commentary in four parts: first, the wording of the UCP article itself; second, the changes from UCP 500; third, a commentary or explanation of why the changes were (or were not) made; and last, cross-references to other articles in UCP 600. This is a more comprehensive concept than a simple side-by-side comparison of one set of rules with another.

The Commentary tackles head-on some of the disputed issues in the rules. For example, article 35, which has disturbed some banks, says that when a nominated bank determines that documents are complying and forwards them to the issuing or confirming bank, the issuing or confirming bank must honour even if the documents are lost in transit. This has been inherent in L/C practice for years, even prior to UCP 600, and the ICC Banking Commission had already issued an Opinion (R 548) on it. The Commentary makes no bones about why it is spelled out in 600: "For an issuing bank to be able to walk away from its undertaking would probably result in no (or very few) nominated banks' agreeing to act under their nomination until they were sure the documents had arrived with an issuing bank."

The Drafting Group has also been quite candid in admitting that certain changes they would have preferred - for example, taking more account of the role of non-banks in issuing L/Cs - were not included in the final text. This concept was roundly rejected by ICC national committees. The Group recognized that without strong backing, the rules would not have been approved and that - as with all UCPs - no party will achieve all it wishes to achieve.

Commentary on UCP 600 is, in some ways, a personal document. As the Introduction makes clear, it does not necessarily represent the views of the full Banking Commission, only the views of the Drafting Group. Nor is it a substitute for the UCP, the ISBP or the Banking Commission Opinions. But since the Drafting Group was comprised of individuals who were closest to the revision - and who wrestled with its language for more than three years - it serves as a welcome source of intelligence for those coming to grips with the new UCP.

Commentary on UCP 600 is available at www.iccbooks.com