I agree with you. If the Nominated Bank has a Payment/Negotiation fee in their schedule of charges then they are entitled to the fee in situation 1. However, it appears that in situation 2 that the Nominated Bank did not pay or negotiate at any stage of the transaction but just deducted the fee on r...

Very interesting debate! I also think that in relation to article 12 (a) the nominated bank can agree on different payment obligation in favour to the Beneficiary from the "confirmation obligation" as mentioned above. As regards "protection" under the UCP 600 I am of the opinion ...

If the confirming bank confirmed the L/C and then there is an amendment to it which they do not want to add their confirmation to, then acc. to art. 10 (b) UCP 600 the confirming bank must so inform the Issuing bank and the Beneficiary. If the confirming bank fails to do so, in my opinion, it would ...

The relevant articles of URDG are Article 2 (b) which deals with the separateness or independence of the URDG guarantee: “Guarantees by their nature are separate transactions from the contract(s) or tender conditions on which they may be based, and Guarantors are in no way concerned with or bound by...

Even if we take it as a proven fact that a person in the collecting bank gave a verbal advice of payment, it would be quite reckless for a remitting bank or any other party to assume that ‘person’ had a mandate or authority to authorise payment, particularly if a large amount of money was involved. ...

Dear all,

yes indeed, I agree that the presentation must be done within validity of the credit to the nominated or issuing bank.

With kind regards,

Pavel Andrle

I agree with Jeremy as above - if the L/C calls for "all risks cover" then the Insitute Cargo Clauses (A) evidencing certain exclusions would be acceptable.

With best regards,

Pavel Andrle

Yes, indeed, the rule works only one way. Certificate instead of policy is not acceptable unless Credit so explicitly allows.

regards,

Pavel Andrle

If a L/C calls for insurance document in two fold and the insurance document shows it was issued in two originals, both of them must be presented in this particular case. This is clear from art. 34b UCP 5OO (also see art. 20(c)ii.) as further explained in para 32 ISBP. Therefore in this case this wa...

My views:

AD. 1) - acceptable. Consignee is company X as required by L/C.

AD. 2) - acceptable. This does not constitute inconsistency.

Best Regards,

Pavel Andrle