Dear Pavel,
Thank you for passing your regards to me, via Roger Jones.
Turning to your comments:
A. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you are of the view that a bank may legitimately raise discrepancies that are neither breaches of the express ‘terms and conditions’ of the credit nor breaches of UCP500. I do not necessarily disagree with this view. However, the concerns I have with it are that:
1. It appears to render the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ irrelevant or redundant or as being -in legal jargon- surplusage. Perhaps the intention was that the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ were to mean the Articles reflect, but do not exclusively represent, ‘international standard banking practice’. However, if this was the intention, it does not appear to be mirrored in the way sub-Article 13a is written and therefore it must leave open the distinct possibility of a court rejecting this interpretation.
2. In order to determine what constitutes a complying presentation, a beneficiary or applicant cannot merely rely on the provisions of a credit and UCP500 and therefore they face the possibility of their documents being rejected, even though they do not breach the express ‘terms and conditions’ of the credit nor UCP500.
B. I find your interpretation of ‘linkage’ quite interesting and again, I do not necessarily disagree with it. However, I would observe Opinion R251 (the only one I can trace on the subject) states:
‘a bank requires to see some form of «linkage » between the documents presented and/or the letter of credit terms’.
It then goes on to give various examples. These, and the general wording of the opinion, would seem to require something over and above mere reflection of the terms and conditions of a credit in a document. Unfortunately, the opinion does not attempt to justify this by relation to the Articles of UCP500.
To compound the matter, later on, the opinion states:
‘Compliance is the presentation of documents which meet the requirements of the individual credit(s) in their terms and conditions, together with the stipulations that are written into the articles of UCP that may apply to that document(s).’
Therefore, having apparently permitted the raising of a discrepancy outside the provisions of a credit and UCP500, the opinion then seems to contradict this by -on the face of it- stating that simply meeting the terms and conditions of the credit and UCP500 is sufficient to achieve compliance. As not infrequently happens in the documentary credit world, something intended to clarify seemingly turns out to offer either new avenues or greater scope for dispute.
C. Finally, if anyone is prepared to offer their own interpretation, with reasons, of the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’, or is aware of any ICC or other published views on the matter, I would be most grateful to hear from them in this forum.
Best regards, Jeremy.
[edited 12/4/01 10:11:10 AM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
Jeremy and Pavel,
OUR INTERPRETATION OF 'AS REFLECTED IN THESE ARTICLES'
We interpret "as reflected in these Articles" to mean that in determination of discrepancies, a document checker should not only stick to the text of the Articles in UCP 500 verbatim, but should also refer to the intent and the implication of the Articles, as well as the backbone doctrines REFLECTED by the Articles - such as those doctines stipulated in Articles 3 and 4.
The ICC Decision on original documents is a good example. It explains the intent and implication of Article 20 (b) on original documents. The official opinions of the ICC Banking Commission on queries are another examples to reflect the UCP 290/400/500 Articles as well as the backbone doctrines of the DC system.
When we say "as reflected in these Artilces", we mean to include those ICC Decisions, official Opinions and ALSO those which are to be issued later upon request of National Committees to clarify the interpretation of certain words used in the Articles.
Hence we do not regard "as reflected in these Articles" or "as reflected in the UCP 500 Articles" as a surplusage. We often use them in our Expert's Report and the Judges, as well the the barristers representing the other parties also accept them.
A MIRROR REFLECTING THE IMAGE OF THE REAL THING IS NOT THE REAL THING
Let us go further to explain by the "lateral thinking" approach. A mirror reflects the image of Jeremy. The mirror is made of a piece of glass with mercury coating or otherwise a highly polished metal surface.
The Jeremy in the mirror is not glass or murcury coating or metal. It is the image of Jeremy - the person in front of the mirror. So the UCP 500 Articles are the mirror and the bakcbone doctrines (EVIDENCED by the ICC Decisions, the official opinions of the ICC Banking Commission) are Jeremy himself, not the image of Jeremy as REFLECTED by the mirror (literal meaning of the Articles).
When we use the mirror to see an image, we should not be confused and regard the mirror or its image as the real thing. This is one of the teachings of Buddhism.
Don't regard what you see in the mirror (the literal meaning) as the real thing ! It is only an REFLECTION of the real thing (the doctrines).
We adore the one person who started using the phrase "AS REFLECTED BY". He should appear to be the the man of wisdom (so regarded by the DC community) - the late Bernard S. Wheble.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/4/01 10:16:42 PM]
OUR INTERPRETATION OF 'AS REFLECTED IN THESE ARTICLES'
We interpret "as reflected in these Articles" to mean that in determination of discrepancies, a document checker should not only stick to the text of the Articles in UCP 500 verbatim, but should also refer to the intent and the implication of the Articles, as well as the backbone doctrines REFLECTED by the Articles - such as those doctines stipulated in Articles 3 and 4.
The ICC Decision on original documents is a good example. It explains the intent and implication of Article 20 (b) on original documents. The official opinions of the ICC Banking Commission on queries are another examples to reflect the UCP 290/400/500 Articles as well as the backbone doctrines of the DC system.
When we say "as reflected in these Artilces", we mean to include those ICC Decisions, official Opinions and ALSO those which are to be issued later upon request of National Committees to clarify the interpretation of certain words used in the Articles.
Hence we do not regard "as reflected in these Articles" or "as reflected in the UCP 500 Articles" as a surplusage. We often use them in our Expert's Report and the Judges, as well the the barristers representing the other parties also accept them.
A MIRROR REFLECTING THE IMAGE OF THE REAL THING IS NOT THE REAL THING
Let us go further to explain by the "lateral thinking" approach. A mirror reflects the image of Jeremy. The mirror is made of a piece of glass with mercury coating or otherwise a highly polished metal surface.
The Jeremy in the mirror is not glass or murcury coating or metal. It is the image of Jeremy - the person in front of the mirror. So the UCP 500 Articles are the mirror and the bakcbone doctrines (EVIDENCED by the ICC Decisions, the official opinions of the ICC Banking Commission) are Jeremy himself, not the image of Jeremy as REFLECTED by the mirror (literal meaning of the Articles).
When we use the mirror to see an image, we should not be confused and regard the mirror or its image as the real thing. This is one of the teachings of Buddhism.
Don't regard what you see in the mirror (the literal meaning) as the real thing ! It is only an REFLECTION of the real thing (the doctrines).
We adore the one person who started using the phrase "AS REFLECTED BY". He should appear to be the the man of wisdom (so regarded by the DC community) - the late Bernard S. Wheble.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/4/01 10:16:42 PM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
T.O.,
Thank you for this.
I do not see any contradiction with the ‘as reflected in these Articles’ element of sub-Article 13a in applying ICC Banking Commission interpretative documents in the determination of compliance. That is provided those interpretative documents relate to one or more specific articles of UCP500 and are not inconsistent with the actual wording of the relevant Article(s) (as, unfortunately, is the case with the ICC Decision relating to original documents; but that’s another matter).
Where I do see a potential conflict with the ‘as reflected in these Articles’ element of sub-Article 13a is in applying tests in determining documents compliance that are not reflected in an Article of UCP500. I believe it is beyond dispute that ‘linkage’ is not alluded to in any way in a UCP500 article. Therefore, if one nonetheless takes it into account when examining documents, I do not see how one can say that one is examining documents in a manner that is reflected in the articles of UCP500. To me, one is going beyond the articles of UCP500 and therefore, on the face of it, contravening this element of sub-Article 13a. I cannot see that this is any less so where it is sanctioned by the ICC Banking Commission, given the ICC Banking Commission is not at liberty to vary the terms of UCP500.
This is the difficulty that, to me, remains unanswered by your kind contribution to my request for other’s views.
As to applying the ‘intent’ or ‘implication’ of the Articles, I do not have any problem with this provided that such intent or implication is clear from the wording of the relevant Article alone. In other words, arriving at a reasonable view of the intent or implication does not require, for example, some background knowledge as to the history of the drafting of the relevant Article or what it was aimed at achieving. Otherwise it creates scope for different interpretations and consequently dispute, not only between banks and beneficiaries or applicants, but between banks themselves as well. The difficulties created by sub-Article 20b seem to me to be a classic example of this.
Regards, Jeremy.
[edited 12/5/01 11:45:02 AM]
Thank you for this.
I do not see any contradiction with the ‘as reflected in these Articles’ element of sub-Article 13a in applying ICC Banking Commission interpretative documents in the determination of compliance. That is provided those interpretative documents relate to one or more specific articles of UCP500 and are not inconsistent with the actual wording of the relevant Article(s) (as, unfortunately, is the case with the ICC Decision relating to original documents; but that’s another matter).
Where I do see a potential conflict with the ‘as reflected in these Articles’ element of sub-Article 13a is in applying tests in determining documents compliance that are not reflected in an Article of UCP500. I believe it is beyond dispute that ‘linkage’ is not alluded to in any way in a UCP500 article. Therefore, if one nonetheless takes it into account when examining documents, I do not see how one can say that one is examining documents in a manner that is reflected in the articles of UCP500. To me, one is going beyond the articles of UCP500 and therefore, on the face of it, contravening this element of sub-Article 13a. I cannot see that this is any less so where it is sanctioned by the ICC Banking Commission, given the ICC Banking Commission is not at liberty to vary the terms of UCP500.
This is the difficulty that, to me, remains unanswered by your kind contribution to my request for other’s views.
As to applying the ‘intent’ or ‘implication’ of the Articles, I do not have any problem with this provided that such intent or implication is clear from the wording of the relevant Article alone. In other words, arriving at a reasonable view of the intent or implication does not require, for example, some background knowledge as to the history of the drafting of the relevant Article or what it was aimed at achieving. Otherwise it creates scope for different interpretations and consequently dispute, not only between banks and beneficiaries or applicants, but between banks themselves as well. The difficulties created by sub-Article 20b seem to me to be a classic example of this.
Regards, Jeremy.
[edited 12/5/01 11:45:02 AM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
Jeremy,
TRAPS BEFORE A DC TECHNICIAN
Our experience in doing DC case studies with participants is that when one sees oneself as a DC technician, one may fall into the trap of:
(1) over reliance on the UCP Articles to resolve everything, such as “linkage”.
(2) having abuse of legal concepts, particularly on “law of contract”.
(3) being more inclined to literal interpretation.
(4) giving preference to putting everything into the UCP.
(5) trying to see and resolve every dispute from the banker’s perspectives alone, thereby refusing to consider or learn the trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance.
IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT ALL COMMON SENSE CONCEPTS INTO THE UCP
We have frequently exchanged views with the leading DC experts from ICC and their views are that it is impossible to put everything, including the common sense concepts (call it “common sense rules” for those who would like everything to be named “rules”) into the UCP. Otherwise it may be as thick as a yellow page telephone directory. And there is no ending for such exercise.
That is why the late DC guru, Bernard Wheble, promoted simple common sense to be used in document examination. We also observe that a lot of queries to the ICC Banking Commission are decided based on simple common sense.
To make DC a helpful tool instead of a barrier to international trade is also an attitude taken by the late Mr. Wheble in document examination.
LINKAGE SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY SIMPLE COMMON SENSE WHERE IT IS DIIFFCULT TO MAKE RULES
How to determine linkage? A man in the street with good common sense should be able to tell us whether this document is linked to the DC or other documents in the same shipment or not. For example, if the at document has the same DC and/or contract number, same shipping marks, same vessel, voyage, container number, same quantity and description of goods, same gross and net weights and measurements, etc. etc.
Of course one single number may not be able to identify linkage to a specific shipment because two shipments to two different importers in the same place of destination or port of discharge, but from the same manufacturer may have the same vessel and voyage number for example. They may even have the same container number if they are consolidated by the same freight forwarder. So common sense tells us that we have to check for other data content in order to ascertain linkage, if the need arises. Such work should require knowledge of the trade practices of other trades. Otherwise one may not be able to apply one’s common sense, at least to the fullest extent.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/11/01 5:19:45 PM]
TRAPS BEFORE A DC TECHNICIAN
Our experience in doing DC case studies with participants is that when one sees oneself as a DC technician, one may fall into the trap of:
(1) over reliance on the UCP Articles to resolve everything, such as “linkage”.
(2) having abuse of legal concepts, particularly on “law of contract”.
(3) being more inclined to literal interpretation.
(4) giving preference to putting everything into the UCP.
(5) trying to see and resolve every dispute from the banker’s perspectives alone, thereby refusing to consider or learn the trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance.
IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT ALL COMMON SENSE CONCEPTS INTO THE UCP
We have frequently exchanged views with the leading DC experts from ICC and their views are that it is impossible to put everything, including the common sense concepts (call it “common sense rules” for those who would like everything to be named “rules”) into the UCP. Otherwise it may be as thick as a yellow page telephone directory. And there is no ending for such exercise.
That is why the late DC guru, Bernard Wheble, promoted simple common sense to be used in document examination. We also observe that a lot of queries to the ICC Banking Commission are decided based on simple common sense.
To make DC a helpful tool instead of a barrier to international trade is also an attitude taken by the late Mr. Wheble in document examination.
LINKAGE SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY SIMPLE COMMON SENSE WHERE IT IS DIIFFCULT TO MAKE RULES
How to determine linkage? A man in the street with good common sense should be able to tell us whether this document is linked to the DC or other documents in the same shipment or not. For example, if the at document has the same DC and/or contract number, same shipping marks, same vessel, voyage, container number, same quantity and description of goods, same gross and net weights and measurements, etc. etc.
Of course one single number may not be able to identify linkage to a specific shipment because two shipments to two different importers in the same place of destination or port of discharge, but from the same manufacturer may have the same vessel and voyage number for example. They may even have the same container number if they are consolidated by the same freight forwarder. So common sense tells us that we have to check for other data content in order to ascertain linkage, if the need arises. Such work should require knowledge of the trade practices of other trades. Otherwise one may not be able to apply one’s common sense, at least to the fullest extent.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/11/01 5:19:45 PM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
T.O.,
My quest is to find the significance/impact of the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’. Put another way, what would bankers do differently if they were absent from sub-Article 13a and the first two sentences simply read:
‘Banks must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Compliance of the stipulated documents on their face with the terms and conditions of the Credit, shall be determined by international standard banking practice.’?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that when checking documents a banker must automatically -by virtue of the nature of the credit instrument- apply compliance ‘tests’ that are neither covered by the terms and conditions of the credit nor UCP500. Also, it would be unrealistic to try to include all these compliance tests in UCP500. Therefore ‘as reflected in these Articles’ cannot be taken to mean a banker is restricted to applying the credit terms and conditions and the Articles of UCP500 ALONE in determining documents compliance. Consequently, your answer to the question: ‘What would bankers do differently if the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ were absent form UCP500?’ would logically be ‘nothing’.
If my understanding of your views are correct -and I sincerely apologise if I have misunderstood them- they do seem to be consistent with the view that the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ are surplusage, given they do not affect how a banker establishes facial compliance.
For my part, I find it difficult to accept that the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ are not without impact and -if they have an impact- that impact is to restrict a banker to compliance tests that are contained within the credit and UCP500 alone. Otherwise, why bother including these words in the first place? I am sorry if I appear to be being obtuse. (Incidentally, I have re-read pages 38 – 40 of UCP500 & 400 Compared.)
Finally, there is one matter on which I must respectfully take issue with you. This is regarding ‘(5) try[ing] to see and resolve every dispute from the banker’s perspectives alone, thereby refus[ing] to consider or learn the trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance.’ As UCP500 & 400 Compared states:
‘there is a method for examination of documents under the Documentary Credit which is peculiar to bankers’.
Also, I anticipate you will know from case law, bankers in the UK at least are not expected (perhaps this should be 'permitted') to apply any knowledge of the practices of other trades, except for that which they have by virtue of their day-to-day operations, in determining facial compliance. Therefore, I believe it is wholly right and proper that a banker does only see and resolve all documentary compliance related matters from the banker’s perspective alone and that to do otherwise would be to breach UCP500.
Best regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/7/01 1:54:49 PM]
My quest is to find the significance/impact of the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’. Put another way, what would bankers do differently if they were absent from sub-Article 13a and the first two sentences simply read:
‘Banks must examine all documents stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear, on their face, to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit. Compliance of the stipulated documents on their face with the terms and conditions of the Credit, shall be determined by international standard banking practice.’?
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that when checking documents a banker must automatically -by virtue of the nature of the credit instrument- apply compliance ‘tests’ that are neither covered by the terms and conditions of the credit nor UCP500. Also, it would be unrealistic to try to include all these compliance tests in UCP500. Therefore ‘as reflected in these Articles’ cannot be taken to mean a banker is restricted to applying the credit terms and conditions and the Articles of UCP500 ALONE in determining documents compliance. Consequently, your answer to the question: ‘What would bankers do differently if the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ were absent form UCP500?’ would logically be ‘nothing’.
If my understanding of your views are correct -and I sincerely apologise if I have misunderstood them- they do seem to be consistent with the view that the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ are surplusage, given they do not affect how a banker establishes facial compliance.
For my part, I find it difficult to accept that the words ‘as reflected in these Articles’ are not without impact and -if they have an impact- that impact is to restrict a banker to compliance tests that are contained within the credit and UCP500 alone. Otherwise, why bother including these words in the first place? I am sorry if I appear to be being obtuse. (Incidentally, I have re-read pages 38 – 40 of UCP500 & 400 Compared.)
Finally, there is one matter on which I must respectfully take issue with you. This is regarding ‘(5) try[ing] to see and resolve every dispute from the banker’s perspectives alone, thereby refus[ing] to consider or learn the trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance.’ As UCP500 & 400 Compared states:
‘there is a method for examination of documents under the Documentary Credit which is peculiar to bankers’.
Also, I anticipate you will know from case law, bankers in the UK at least are not expected (perhaps this should be 'permitted') to apply any knowledge of the practices of other trades, except for that which they have by virtue of their day-to-day operations, in determining facial compliance. Therefore, I believe it is wholly right and proper that a banker does only see and resolve all documentary compliance related matters from the banker’s perspective alone and that to do otherwise would be to breach UCP500.
Best regards, Jeremy
[edited 12/7/01 1:54:49 PM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
Dear Jeremy,
We would like to respond to your comments on ours regarding whether or not “ as reflected in these Articles” is a surplusage, as follows:
(1) Those words following “if I understand you correctly” are your own interpretation of our writings. To avoid back and forth arguments and clarifications, like what you have with Laurence that leads to nowhere, and ultimately ending with “agree to disagree”, we do not wish to go further as a re-reading of our opinions a second or third time may clarify our real intentions.
(2) We do understand that your views represent those held by certain conservative bankers – to examine documents solely based on banking perspectives and refuse to get familiarized with the basic knowledge and trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance. This may have a lot of drawbacks, such as not being able to detect the footprints in the documents to raise the red flag against frauds in good time, bringing a lot of troubles by refusing documents due to ignorance on the changing practices of other trades and so on. The quality of customer services would be deteriorated as a result.
(3) To warrant survival in this highly competitive banking arena, some forward looking bankers strive to provide added value to their customers. They are trying to learn more about the basic knowledge and trade practices of other trades, as reflected by the overwhelming response to such workshops. A bank in Hong Kong even goes further. For those highly technical issues which they cannot determine compliance themselves, they would like to retain us to help them examine the documents. To protect the privacy of their customers, they hide the sensitive data content. Then they would determine discrepancies after considering our opinions. Many trade frauds can be identified at an early stage. Does this make sense to you?
(4) In fact, bankers are well protected by the disclaimer articles in the UCP. Hence it is not a risky business trying to do a little more to serve their customers. When we go for e-commerce, bankers have to expose themselves to many new things. If they don’t have the “lifetime learning”, “self development” and “a learning corporation” concepts, they would be replaced with those who do.
(5) In this cyberworld, old dogs have to learn new tricks or somedays they would be replaced by the cyberdogs from Sony that are selling very well in the web during Christmas season.
(6) In fact, we belong to two schools of thinking. Unless one of us changes his mind, we have to end up with “agree to disagree”. We think the best way is to let the members decide for themselves, after both of us have expressed our views on this issue.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/11/01 5:15:09 PM]
We would like to respond to your comments on ours regarding whether or not “ as reflected in these Articles” is a surplusage, as follows:
(1) Those words following “if I understand you correctly” are your own interpretation of our writings. To avoid back and forth arguments and clarifications, like what you have with Laurence that leads to nowhere, and ultimately ending with “agree to disagree”, we do not wish to go further as a re-reading of our opinions a second or third time may clarify our real intentions.
(2) We do understand that your views represent those held by certain conservative bankers – to examine documents solely based on banking perspectives and refuse to get familiarized with the basic knowledge and trade practices of other trades, such as transport and insurance. This may have a lot of drawbacks, such as not being able to detect the footprints in the documents to raise the red flag against frauds in good time, bringing a lot of troubles by refusing documents due to ignorance on the changing practices of other trades and so on. The quality of customer services would be deteriorated as a result.
(3) To warrant survival in this highly competitive banking arena, some forward looking bankers strive to provide added value to their customers. They are trying to learn more about the basic knowledge and trade practices of other trades, as reflected by the overwhelming response to such workshops. A bank in Hong Kong even goes further. For those highly technical issues which they cannot determine compliance themselves, they would like to retain us to help them examine the documents. To protect the privacy of their customers, they hide the sensitive data content. Then they would determine discrepancies after considering our opinions. Many trade frauds can be identified at an early stage. Does this make sense to you?
(4) In fact, bankers are well protected by the disclaimer articles in the UCP. Hence it is not a risky business trying to do a little more to serve their customers. When we go for e-commerce, bankers have to expose themselves to many new things. If they don’t have the “lifetime learning”, “self development” and “a learning corporation” concepts, they would be replaced with those who do.
(5) In this cyberworld, old dogs have to learn new tricks or somedays they would be replaced by the cyberdogs from Sony that are selling very well in the web during Christmas season.
(6) In fact, we belong to two schools of thinking. Unless one of us changes his mind, we have to end up with “agree to disagree”. We think the best way is to let the members decide for themselves, after both of us have expressed our views on this issue.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/11/01 5:15:09 PM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
T.O.,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my last posting. Clearly both you and I have different perspectives when it comes to documentary credit operations.
One final thing, it is often not clear to me if I am communicating with T.O. Lee the individual, or T.O. Lee the commercial entity of, presumably, more than one employee. Given your use of plural pronouns -‘we’, ‘us’- I assume that it is T.O. Lee the commercial entity and thus postings written by ‘T.O. Lee’ may well not have been written by T.O. Lee himself.
Regards, Jeremy
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my last posting. Clearly both you and I have different perspectives when it comes to documentary credit operations.
One final thing, it is often not clear to me if I am communicating with T.O. Lee the individual, or T.O. Lee the commercial entity of, presumably, more than one employee. Given your use of plural pronouns -‘we’, ‘us’- I assume that it is T.O. Lee the commercial entity and thus postings written by ‘T.O. Lee’ may well not have been written by T.O. Lee himself.
Regards, Jeremy
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
Jeremy,
From your last response, you appear to act more like a lawyer than a banker. Please do not make any more assumptions or rely too much on literal meaning or interpretations here. We would apreciate it if you would not treat postings in the Discussion Forum as if they were documents under examination with UCP 500. The postings are provided merely for the purpose of exchange of ideas and thoughts and nothing more. Some may be right and some may be wrong. This is not important as far as freely exchange of opinions is concerned. That is why members and 7 day viewers should not rely on and act according to opinions expressed here. Othwerwise they do so at their own <cost and risk>.
If one cares so much about literal meaning, our postings, including this one, are not even written by "T. O. Lee Consultants Limited" per se. It is posted by a letter of credit website named "http://www.tolee.com".
Whatever posted by "T. O. Lee Consultants Lmited" or "we" or "us" or "http://www.tolee.com" represents the opinions of "T. O. Lee Consultants Limited". It is not important who writes a particular posting. The important thing is that "Does that posting make any practical sense?"
Hope this would satisfy your curiosity. If one really wants to clarify who writes a particular posting, like this one, one may use simple common sense to find out oneself.
Jeremy, if your intention is to provide some English humour here, then you may ignore this posting.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/13/01 2:55:58 PM]
From your last response, you appear to act more like a lawyer than a banker. Please do not make any more assumptions or rely too much on literal meaning or interpretations here. We would apreciate it if you would not treat postings in the Discussion Forum as if they were documents under examination with UCP 500. The postings are provided merely for the purpose of exchange of ideas and thoughts and nothing more. Some may be right and some may be wrong. This is not important as far as freely exchange of opinions is concerned. That is why members and 7 day viewers should not rely on and act according to opinions expressed here. Othwerwise they do so at their own <cost and risk>.
If one cares so much about literal meaning, our postings, including this one, are not even written by "T. O. Lee Consultants Limited" per se. It is posted by a letter of credit website named "http://www.tolee.com".
Whatever posted by "T. O. Lee Consultants Lmited" or "we" or "us" or "http://www.tolee.com" represents the opinions of "T. O. Lee Consultants Limited". It is not important who writes a particular posting. The important thing is that "Does that posting make any practical sense?"
Hope this would satisfy your curiosity. If one really wants to clarify who writes a particular posting, like this one, one may use simple common sense to find out oneself.
Jeremy, if your intention is to provide some English humour here, then you may ignore this posting.
http://www.tolee.com
[edited 12/13/01 2:55:58 PM]
documents presented do not refer to dc or shipment
I am pleased to see, after some time of my unwilling absence due to business at work, that the already interesting debate has even developed. I must admit that to some extent I „agree and disagree“ with both Jeremy and www.tolee.com, so to put it into the „street man talk“ – the aswer is probably „somewhere in the middle“. There is for sure a diference between „as reflected in these articles“ and „as written in these articles“ or even „as defined in these articles“. In the interpretation of the „standard international banking practice“ in „practice“, I feel that I would be getting much closer to the views of Jeremy.
Merry Christmas and/or Happy New Year!
Pavel Andrle
Merry Christmas and/or Happy New Year!
Pavel Andrle