Applicant as a party

khalilhamad · Post by **khalilhamad** » Thu Nov 23, 2000 12:00 am

I understand that Applicant is a party to the credit under ISP unlike the case under UCP. It has been argued that it was a wise move to exclude applicant from the parties to the credit . (leaving the relationship b/t issuing bank and applicant to local law). What is the reason for the difference b/t ISP and UCP in this respect?

AbdulkaderBazara · Post by **AbdulkaderBazara** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 12:00 am

Applicant is not a party to the standby but rather ISP98 Rules apply to the request for issuance of the standby. Please refer to The Official Commentary on the International Standby Practices - Official Comments on Rule 1.04: Effect of the Rules - point no. 4b.

T.O.Lee · Post by **T.O.Lee** » Sat May 05, 2001 1:00 am

The ISP 98 (please be on the alert that there are two ways to present "ISP 98": - the USA way "ISP98" and the ICC way "ISP 98" so that it is consistent with the ICC practice, leaving a space between the number of the rule and its abbreviation) clearly spells out the rights and obligations of the applicant, mostly related to the issuer. This cannot be taken to imply that the applicant is a party to the SBLC.

Otherwise the backbone principle of LC system may fall part. From my experience in lecturing UCP or ISP to the traders, they normally do not believe that the applicant is not a party to the LC or SBLC. It takes me a lot of efforts to convince them, since the UCP 500 also talks a lot about the rights and obligations of the applicant.

I am from www.tolee.com

[edited 11/8/01 11:04:18 PM]