How should we present ISP 98?
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2002 1:00 am
Laurence,
MEANING OF “BIFURCATED STANDARD”
Your interpretation of “bifurcated standard” as “operating dual standards” comes quite close. That means the issuing bank may use “doctrine of strict compliance” at one time and at other times use “doctrine of substantial compliance” in determination of discrepancies in the presented documents under DC.
It is accepted in ISBP that these two doctrines can both be used, but whether also applicable to the same discrepancy, we are not so certain as this is not stated in the UCP or ISBP. However, from the wording in ISP 98 sub-Rule 3.07, "Separateness of Each Presentation", it appears that this "bifurcated standard" may be applied to the same discrepancy. “Pourquoi Pas?” (“Why Not?” - a French word we know after the explanation by the owner of a gourmet restaurant in Toronto with the same name).
To be honest, this gives a bank a freedom to consider other factors as well, not only based on the documents alone as required by the UCP 500 Articles 13 & 14, such as the financial position of the applicant, whether the goods are perishable in nature or easily disposable in the market place, in-house policy, advice from the legal counsel and other reasons.
FURTHER LEGAL EXPLANATION OF “BIFURCATED STANDARD” BY A DC LAW GURU
For further explanation of this term, please refer to page 9-27, Section 9.03 (1) (a), under the topic of “Another Substantial Compliance Rule” in an authoritative publication in our private library “The Law of Letters of Credit, Commercial and Standby Credits” Second Edition, by John F. Dolan, the USA guru on DC laws.
Mr. Dolan explains: “The beneficiary cannot complain if he fails a strict compliance test, but the account party (applicant in USA terms) cannot complain if the issuer (issuing bank in USA terms) accepts less than strict compliance”.
So no complaints for a bank to use “dual standards”.
WHAT HAPPEN IN ISP 98 AND ISBP?
ISP sub-Rule 5.06 (c) also supports something like “bifurcated standard” although strictly speaking this term only refers to the “doctrine of strict or substantial compliance”.
Both the ISBP and ISP 98 Rule 3.07 (according to our friend Professor Jim Byrnes, whom we often address as the “father” of ISP 98, there is no such thing as “Articles” in the ISP 98. All you have are “Rules” or “sub-Rules” to be precise. This is a good tip to test whether a banker is really good at ISP 98, paying attention to each minute detail, as we consultants do.) consider that each presentation is separate. This seems to support the spirit of “bifurcated standard”.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/10/02 7:24:20 PM]
MEANING OF “BIFURCATED STANDARD”
Your interpretation of “bifurcated standard” as “operating dual standards” comes quite close. That means the issuing bank may use “doctrine of strict compliance” at one time and at other times use “doctrine of substantial compliance” in determination of discrepancies in the presented documents under DC.
It is accepted in ISBP that these two doctrines can both be used, but whether also applicable to the same discrepancy, we are not so certain as this is not stated in the UCP or ISBP. However, from the wording in ISP 98 sub-Rule 3.07, "Separateness of Each Presentation", it appears that this "bifurcated standard" may be applied to the same discrepancy. “Pourquoi Pas?” (“Why Not?” - a French word we know after the explanation by the owner of a gourmet restaurant in Toronto with the same name).
To be honest, this gives a bank a freedom to consider other factors as well, not only based on the documents alone as required by the UCP 500 Articles 13 & 14, such as the financial position of the applicant, whether the goods are perishable in nature or easily disposable in the market place, in-house policy, advice from the legal counsel and other reasons.
FURTHER LEGAL EXPLANATION OF “BIFURCATED STANDARD” BY A DC LAW GURU
For further explanation of this term, please refer to page 9-27, Section 9.03 (1) (a), under the topic of “Another Substantial Compliance Rule” in an authoritative publication in our private library “The Law of Letters of Credit, Commercial and Standby Credits” Second Edition, by John F. Dolan, the USA guru on DC laws.
Mr. Dolan explains: “The beneficiary cannot complain if he fails a strict compliance test, but the account party (applicant in USA terms) cannot complain if the issuer (issuing bank in USA terms) accepts less than strict compliance”.
So no complaints for a bank to use “dual standards”.
WHAT HAPPEN IN ISP 98 AND ISBP?
ISP sub-Rule 5.06 (c) also supports something like “bifurcated standard” although strictly speaking this term only refers to the “doctrine of strict or substantial compliance”.
Both the ISBP and ISP 98 Rule 3.07 (according to our friend Professor Jim Byrnes, whom we often address as the “father” of ISP 98, there is no such thing as “Articles” in the ISP 98. All you have are “Rules” or “sub-Rules” to be precise. This is a good tip to test whether a banker is really good at ISP 98, paying attention to each minute detail, as we consultants do.) consider that each presentation is separate. This seems to support the spirit of “bifurcated standard”.
www.tolee.com
[edited 7/10/02 7:24:20 PM]