ICC Digital Library Forum

Jeremy,

I do not want to be a bore but now, could you explain to me the
difference between having five days and having a maximum of five days.
Regards
Daniel

Daniel,

Whether or not I can I do not know. As the distinction - if any- is not relevant to the operation of UCP600 sub-Articles 16(d) and (f) I am not currently willing to devote any thought to the matter. Hope this does not sound too 'brutal'.

Jeremy

Following a discussion in which I have been involved I now realise that by reason of the wording of UCP600 sub-Article 16(c) it could be argued that a bank could fall foul of sub-Article 16(e) before the 5 five days has elapsed: ‘WHEN a … bank decides to refuse … it must give a single notice …’. (I recognise that there is not any reference to ‘without delay’; UCP500 sub-Article 14(d)(i) refers.)

Therefore, I am now less confident about my statement that ‘the minimum time before the ‘preclusion rule’ (now in sub-Article 16(f)) can possibly be invoked has been increased over UCP500 … to five banking days’.

Jeremy,
Of course, it does not sound too brutal, it is a discussion forum after all (sometimes similar to "Hard Talk" on BBC ).
So now could we say that "maximum" is in line with "when" or the other way round? or something like that?
Daniel

Dear Jeremy,

… but surely … that could not be the intention … and if it was in fact the intention by the drafting group, then someone have kept very quiet about it!
I must say that if this turns out to be the INTERPRETATION of that rule, then we would have been better off with the old one. At least there it was clear to every one that the rule was made of rubber band.

Best regards
Kim

Kim,

My opinion is that if the majority of NCs wanted a guaranteed automatic five b/d to examine and give notice of refusal, without any possibility of incurring any form of liability whatsoever unless a longer period was taken, then it is by no means certain that this is what they have got.

If 14(b) had omitted the words ‘a maximum of’ (these words seemingly meaning ‘no more than’ and nothing more) and 16(b) had used the word ‘where’ instead of ‘when’ then I think one could have been reasonably confident that the guaranteed automatic five b/d had been achieved. (I do not see the words ‘no later than’ in 16(d) as being material to the position.)

Whether this uncertainty is the fault of the drafters or the NCs or both I’ve no idea. I was in the ‘3 day ‘safe harbour’ and leave the maximum at 7 days’ camp myself.

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 4/3/2007 3:41:50 PM]