Article

Factual Summary: Applicant brought an action against the confirmer for breach of contract and failure to use reasonable care in the examination of the documents.


Legal Analysis:

1. Privity: The appellate court held that the applicant could not sue the confirmer for breach of contract because there was no privity of contract between the applicant and the confirmer.

2. Reasonable Care; UCP 400 Article 23: The appellate court found that the confirmer owed no duty to the applicant to use reasonable care in the examination of the documents. Moreover, the court noted that the confirmer had examined the documents on their face and was not responsible for defects in the goods.

©1997 INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.