Document 470/TA.569

SvetlanaS · Post by **SvetlanaS** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Daniel

Interesting comment, particularly as you started this discussion regarding an ICC opinion about ‘negotiation’.

But apart from my comment on the confusing ‘negotiation’ label often attached to LC’s available by sight payment, I agree that it is best avoiding the ‘negotiation’ merry-go-round.

Thank you.

Svetlana

[edited 8/13/2008 10:49:51 AM]

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Svetlana,
Sorry, at first, I did not want to start a discussion about negotiation but I wanted just to know if ta.569 had been published.
Best regards
Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Aug 13, 2008 1:00 am

Nice one Daniel

but really … you are asking the wrong person … In any case there are many ICC Opinions that are not published … for whatever reason I guess …

LeoCullen · Post by **LeoCullen** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:00 am

Thanks for pointing this out Daniel.

This Opinion (TA569) was one of eight agreed upon at the 2004 Banking Commission Meeting in Moscow. Due to an administrative error it was not included on DC-PRO with the others at that time.

TA569 is now in the Unpublished - UCP 500 section.

The Opinions from each Banking Commission Meeting since Delhi 2003 are available from the home page with the link "Read the latest ICC Opinions from..." as well as in their relevant Published/Unpublished section of the ICC Opinions area of the service.

Hope that this proves of help.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Aug 14, 2008 1:00 am

Leo,
Fin du mystère..., thanks.
Regards
Daniel