ICC Digital Library Forum

T.O.

I was being a little facetious in referring to UCP 666. I chose that number because of its devilish connotations. My contention is that eUCP should settle down before being incorporated in UCP 600, as otherwise it may be a devil of a job to accommodate it within the general rules of UCP.

I cannot foresee the ICC giving out free issues of eUCP, so I presume that you intended to refer to complementary versions of eUCP, when matching later versions of UCP, instead of complimentary versions.

Laurence

Hi friends
This is me again. Let me give you some of my thoughts on this subject. Nobody can blame me for being principally against a revision of UCP but at the moment I ask myself : why ? It was already in 1998 as I wrote an article in Documentary Credit World headed "Is it time for UCP600 ?" because at that time I felt that there was a need to talk about a revision. Well the reaction of ICC was: no, despite numerous unsolved problems. Now all over sudden there sems to be a need and I am looking forward to hear the reasons for the change of mind at the banking commission´s meeting to come . Especially as hopefully we will have an accepted draft on International Standard Banking Practice soon which will be based on UCP500) and as we now have already eUCP version 1.0 (also based on UCP500). So we will see.
Kind Regards
Heinz

Hello Laurence,

The MS Word spelling check is working like a robot and cannot point out the difference between "complimentary and "complementary". Thanks for your reminder. We have already corrected this. We would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Alan Liu from Taiwan who spends his valuable time advising us of the typos in our past DC Pro postings, which he has noted from our website.

Hello Heinz,

We agree with you that the UCP 500 should have been revised long time ago. We cannot say anything more here as our speculations should more appropriately be exchanged over a beer when we meet next time, either in next week in Paris or in Vienna next year.

My thoughts are: If Heinz feels like a revision, the revision should be there because you are a practical, fair and reasonable banker that I know. This is not shoe shining. Otherwise I should have done this before your retirement.

www.tolee.com

[edited 4/15/02 7:55:26 PM]

Hi T.O.
There seems to be a misunderstanding as at the moment I do not quite feel like a revision because of ISBP, eUCP etc. all, of them being new and based on UCP500. I was feeling like a revision before these works had been done but now - I do not know for sure. This is the reason why I am interested in learning what the motives are now for a revision. We know from the ICC paper that some national committees asked for it, but what was their reason for doing so. If we know that we can go on in deciding whether it is good or not. But in any case - a revison - whenever it happens must be done thoroughly and under no time pressure despite the time limit which was set up after the opinion poll done by ICC some time ago.

Heinz,

Now we are perfectly clear about your thoughts on the UCP 500 revision.

One of the troubles as we see it is that the DC is subject only to UCP 500 on its face, but not also to ISBP or other related publications from ICC like eUCP, Gary Collyer’s Transferable Credits Documents now under preparation, etc., etc.

For avoidance of the problem of “which is binding and which is not”, that is often argued in the courtroom, the foundation - UCP 500 - should be modified to incorporate officially those practices stated in ISBP and other related publications.

ISBP, eUCP are starter and salad. The kitchen has to present the main course to fit the changing appetite in the gastronomic world. For example, certain Canadian bankers are considering that we have too many rules now to confuse us, UCP 500, ISP 98, UN Convention on Documentary & Standby Credits and Guarantees, URR 525, eUCP, ISBP, Transferable Credits Document, and more to come soon!

Why not combine them all together and we only have to read one rule - the UCP X00?

www.tolee.com

The need to update the UCP 500 is that the introduction part of related explanations on UCP 500, such as the ISBP, eUCP etc. all clarifies clearly that they are not to change or to replace the UCP 500 Articles. So for countries like UK subject to the influence of the Glencore case, the ICC Decision on Original may have problems in enforceability due to the Glencore case decision. The only thing is to change sub-Article 20 (b) upright to remove all the problems and mists. There are other trouble-laden articles, such as No. 23, stating that when an agent signs for a master, the name of the master has to be given and many others. These cannot be done with an explanatory type of document like ISBP.

www.tolee.com

[edited 4/19/02 6:28:49 PM]

YOURS FOR THE ASKING

In the ICC BC meetings held in April 2002, a Task Force is formed to give advice to ICC BC whether an update on UCP 500 is really necessary.

Some bankers present said that it is not necessary as we already have many publications to explain the UCP 500 Articles, such as the Official Opinions on queries, Position Paper, the “Original Documents” Decision Paper, the ISBP, the Transferable Credit Document (under drafting by Gary Collyer) and Discrepancies, Waiver and Refusal Notice (subject to approval by the NC).

Some banks present (including us non-bankers), opined that it is now time to start revision of the UCP 500 as the revision job would take at least 3 years or even more from Dan Taylor who has gone through UCP 400, UCP 500, ISP 98, URR 525, eUCP, DOCDEX, ISBP, etc, etc.

So if you want the revision to start now, you have to write to ICC BC for it. Otherwise it may never come.

www.tolee.com

[edited 4/29/02 10:47:19 PM]

I would jump into this discussion and add my "yea" vote to a revision of the UCP. In addition to the various points raised by others that seem to need clarification, there is one point that I would really like to see included in the UCP -- an article similar to Aritcle 6 of the ISP98 -- transferee by operation of law. In these times of rapid name changes and mergers, sometimes some credits live longer than the names of the beneficiaries ! And do we documentary credit departments get grief when we refuse invoices in the name of the new entity!

I also agree that the eUCP should be kept as a supplement, at least for one more revision of the UCP. This is a domain that is rapidly changing and I fear that if it is incorporated into the UCP, they would become outdated too rapidly -- we wouldn't have time enough to iron out the difficulties before having to start the wash again (that's a woman speaking, you can tell). Of course if the UCP 600 come out, the eUCP will have to be amended since they specifically relate to the UCP 500.

However, despite what people would like to make us believe, there will be a problem with updating the ISBP to take into account any revision of the UCP.

Personal comment :
Jeremy (if you will permit such familiarity) votre petite française was sad not to meet you at the ICC Paris venue. Happy to meet Laurence, and to see T.O. from afar (surrounded by too many admirers). But Laurence and I decided that maybe it was better to leave you to your illusions as far as meeting each other.

Judith

Judith,

Thank you for your kind words. However, I’m not quite sure what illusions you think I have and about whom I have them!

As to your suggestion re UCP600, while I am not against it, I would mention it is not normally a problem in practice for us. Provided the beneficiary can provide suitable evidence that they are the same legal entity as that named in the credit, which they usually can, we are happy to take up documents in a name other than that stated in the credit.

Finally, I do not see that ISBP should necessarily require revision with UCP600, provided UCP600 does not contain anything that is inconsistent with ISBP. And given ISBP supposedly is international standard banking practice, UCP600 ought not to.

Regards, Jeremy

Jeremy,

I have had problems with certain banks due to change of names -- particularly when the country in question is strict about import licences. Up until now all these problems have been resolved favorably, but it would be better not to have the problem at all.

I wonder if we shall ever see the publication of the ISBP -- how many revisions have been proposed. In the last revision I have before me, there are specific references to specific articles -- just opening at random I come on paragraph number 33 which starts Sub-Article 13(c) of UCP 500. Now tell me again that they would not have to be revised.... particularly if we manage to do something a bit better for this (in)famous article 13c.

What do others think ?


Judith