Thank you for your comments, folks! As this is the case of suspected fraud, we would co-operate with the applicant as long as it does not conflict with our obligations under UCP 500. But we will not release the copy documents to the applicant before checking them. We made this decision together with...

Dear colleagues: could you please help me with the advice and references to applicable opinions (if any) regarding following subject: that the applicant may not make use of documents prior acceptance of the discrepancies under LC. Anything concerning that would be very valuable as at the moment one ...

Thanks, Jeremy. We have decided to honour this demand and ignore the omission of contract number excactly because our guarantee number was clearly indicated and therefore it was linked with underlying contract. (And we found the missing fax sent one day before expiry date to our bank :) Some documen...

Dear Jeremy, thank you for your reply. Yes, this is a direct guarantee(from our bank to the beneficiary). Guarantee text did not specifically allow fax demands, but beneficiary's demand was backed with mt799 from bene's bank where they confirmed the authenticity of the claim (and signee). Claim desc...

Hi, colleagues, Hopefully you can give me an urgent advice regarding guarantee. We issued direct first demand urdg-guarantee and received otherwise correct demand under it except for: 1) demand does not show the number and date of underlying contract, only referres to some articles of this unmention...