Forgot your password?
Please enter your email & we will send your password to you:
Copyright © International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). All rights reserved.
( Source of the document: ICC Digital Library )
One of the features of DCInsight has been to allow our writers to respond to articles in past issues of the magazine. By doing so, we hope to encourage a continuing dialogue, since there are issues that have no clear cut and definitive resolution.
In the present issue, we continue this tradition in our feature on Guarantees and standbys, in which two of our writers respond to past articles submitted by Jim Barnes, one of our most valued contributors. But far from taking issue with what Jim has written, our reporters, Roger Fayers and Georges Affaki, in agreeing with Jim's views, expand on them.
Roger Fayers, for example, while agreeing with Jim that UK court decisions concerning guarantees "will continue to confuse users and courts alike", points out that one reason for this is the difference between two systems: the US with its statutory code on guarantees and the UK, which has no such code and which relies on judicial precedents.
We'll continue to encourage our writers to comment on past articles, since we believe DCInsight should continue to be an interactive publication, one in which all points of view can be expressed.
In this issue, we also welcome a new writer, Kevin Tam, who's contributed a provocative article concerning the five-day rule for the issuing and confirming banks to determine whether a presentation is compliant or not. In his view, the relevant articles of UCP 600, sub-articles 14 (b) and 16 (d), may not be applicable to the issuing bank and confirming bank when a presentation has been forwarded to them by the nominated bank for reimbursement. If this is the case, Tam argues, in these circumstances, the five-day rule may not be in accordance with UCP 600. You can decide whether you agree with him.
With the next issue, we'll be beginning our 20th year of DCInsight. The year 2014 could see some modifications in the magazine, and we'll want to have your opinion about them.
Ron Katz Editor