linkage

[Yahya]

As you know in the lifetime of UCP500 there was an "consistency" concept mostly relating to the whole of docs consisting of a presentation must appear to the same transaction i.e. there should be a sufficient link between the data content of each document.(This view was expressed by the ICC in many of the queries in the past)

Now I 'd like to refer to a statement in the first para on page 65 in the Commentary which particularly seems to adress to this "linkage" consept under Sub Art 14e which reads "UCP600 does not refer to ,require or imply that linkage is necessary between or among docs."
My question whether this wording means that there will be no linkage concept anymore within the implementation of the new UCP.Or it basicly says UCP 600 does not refer to any form of linkage and the manner in which a linkage is formed, is not governed by the new UCP as it was so in the UCP 500.

Is the term linkage still alive or dead !?
I would appreciate your comments.

Regards ,
Yahya





[edited 12/27/2007 11:14:18 AM]

[NigelHolt]

Yahya,

I suspect the sentence in the commentary to which you refer is intended to kill the idea of 'linkage'. Unfortunately it seems to live on in at least para 183 of ISBP681 where it is stated: 'The certificate of origin must appear to relate to the invoiced goods.'

Thus the position remains dangerously unclear to me.

[KimChristensen]

Dear Yahya,

This is one issue I have previously categorized as ” A change in practice – that is more or less ambiguous” – in this case I guess it is more “more” then less

In any case – I read this as wishful thinking of the drafting group – and it surely contradicts ICC opinion R251:

Quote
However, a bank requires to see some form of «linkage» between the documents presented and/or the letter of credit terms.
Unquote

Best regards
Kim

[edited 12/27/2007 3:13:31 PM]

[DanielD]

In my opinion, Commentary page 65 just states a fact i.e. UCP 600 does not refer to, etc... . It is very true. So R251 (also quoted in R 556) is still valid.
Now it is about time we knew what queries, opinions, etc... are still valid or not. Otherwise we will have trouble.
Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Daniel, the question is why the Drafting Group -or an individual member thereof- felt the need to raise the matter in the first place. I think I know, but accept I might be quite wrong, and anyway will not speculate here. Suffice it to say that while para 183 of ISBP681 exists I see little opportunity for driving a stake through the heart of this most unwelcome (to an issuing or nominated bank) concept. (Not that I think mere omission from the next revision of ISBP would help, as we have learned to our cost with ISBP645 para 82. In fact, the question of linkage is a classic example of how mere omission -without an express statement of intent- causes confusion; it was covered by Article 23 of UCP400 but UCP500 & 400 Compared gave absolutely no reason for its non-inclusion in 500. Thus it was allowed to be ‘resurrected’ in the ICC opinion Kim mentions.)

[Yahya]

Is it possible just to say that the opinions R.251 and R.556,the opinions which were given under UCP500 and by referring to the sentence stated in the Commentary, there is no linkage term living on anymore within the scope of UCP600.

Regards,

[DanielD]

Jeremy,
I think that the question is what exists now about documentary credits. I mean the mountain of opinions, queries, docdexes, decisions, statements, and so on. It is inevitable that all this litterature contains clashes and contradictions with the new rules as some of it and maybe most of it, is not 600 compatible. As it would take too long and it would therefore be too expensive to update it, we should get rif of it and restart from scratch again. Just with the UCP and ISBP (revised and not only updated) for example.
Daniel

[KimChristensen]

Dear Daniel,

You know I agree with you
If nothing else then these examples of practices that have become increasingly unclear after UCP 600 and the Commentary – only underline that the ISBP is more important than ever – and a full revision would indeed be beneficial.

Best regards
Kim

[JLee]

If we refer to item 14.5 on page 17 of FAQ Volume 1 of Gary Gollyer, he replied "Whether there is a need for the documents to contain data that links them to the same presentation. the answer to this is NO."
I understand his reply but don't understand how he came up with the reply. It's because there seems to be no difference between UCP500 and 600 in this respect.
Also, it's not known whether R251 should be superseded.
Jack Chan

[KimChristensen]

Dear Jack Chan,

Thanks for sharing. That would in any case ”explain” (not sure if that is the right word) the wording used in the Commentary

Best regards
Kim