Judith,
I do not have any reason to believe that under English law a bank would have an obligation to point out to a beneficiary that a document that is called for by the credit is unobtainable. Also, I do not see the document in question is ‘illegal’ as such, it just cannot be produced as a side effect (effet secondaire) of EU law relating to shipping conferences. I would also mention that there is not any reason why a bank in the EU should automatically be aware of EU regulation 1490/2007.
However, I do agree that currently document checkers have to be well trained and intelligent, and not robots but this is by reason of the inadequate & incomplete drafting of UCP600 and often credits themselves. The ideal is nonetheless ‘mechanical’ examination of documents as this is far less risky and is cheaper. If adoption of this approach were to ‘kill’ the documentary credit then that is a further argument in its favour i.e. not against it.
Regards, Jeremy
Conference or Regualr Line - B/Ls
Conference or Regualr Line - B/Ls
Judith, Jeremy,
I agree a checker should be trained and intelligent. I also agree checking should not be automatic ( It would be a boring job to start with). A checker must know UCP, ISBP, URR, the mountain of queries and opinions, docdexes, etc... He should also read relevant articles and books, he should have some knowledge in contracts, Incoterms, transport, insurance... But I also think that some issues should be left to the right people such as Legal and Credit Managers.
Regards
Daniel
I agree a checker should be trained and intelligent. I also agree checking should not be automatic ( It would be a boring job to start with). A checker must know UCP, ISBP, URR, the mountain of queries and opinions, docdexes, etc... He should also read relevant articles and books, he should have some knowledge in contracts, Incoterms, transport, insurance... But I also think that some issues should be left to the right people such as Legal and Credit Managers.
Regards
Daniel