I have received from ICC UK what I understand to be a copy of the agenda for the next Oct ICC ‘Banking’ Commission meeting. I notice one of the items is:
‘Guarantees
The Commission will be asked for its approval to begin work on a revision of the ICC’s rules for Demand Guarantees in 2007. ICC UK members are asked to consider this proposal.’
It seems to me odd that the revision of the URDG should be considered rather than the ICC producing a combined set of rules to cover both ‘demand guarantees’ and standby letters of credit. As these two ‘instruments’ are indisputably legally and functionally the same* there is no logical reason why this should not be easily achieved. This would have significant operational benefits, from a cost and risk perspective, for banks.
I believe anyone (with a good knowledge of both) carrying out an impartial comparison of the URDG and ISP98 could not but conclude that ISP98 was a far superior set of rules for demand default undertakings than the URDG and that therefore the ISP should form the basis of the combined rules.
What do others think?
* For example, in 'Guide to the ICC Uniform Rule for Demand Guarantees', ICC Publication 510, by Prof. Sir Roy Goode, p16:
'There is a wide misconception that standby credits are legally distinct from demand guarantees. That is not so. From a legal perspective the standby credit is simply another term for demand guarantee ...'.
URDG REVISION
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
URDG REVISION
I don't have much working experience on the URDG but got to know it better after I read the ICC book entitled "A User's Handbook to the URDG" by Dr. Georges Affaki.
On pages 137 to 143 paragraphs 195 to 200, Dr. Affaki, provides similarities and differences between URDG and ISP 98. He confirms that the ISP is more detailed but also states that URGD focuses and concentrates on demand guarantee practices.
In my part of the world, the standby letters of credit that we issue or receive are usually subject to UCP500 and the demand guarantees or counter-guarantees that we issue or receive are also usually subject to a law rather than to rules of practices.
I don't know whether, internationally, the URDG is widely used but I know for a fact that most of our customers don't have much knowledge of either the URDG or the ISP. I also doubt whether many of the banks have the URDG, specifically recognized, in their internal policies and procedure, as acceptable rules of practice though, in reality, they may not refuse a counter-guarantee or a guarantee subject to such rules. I am also not aware or attended any seminar, exclusively made on URDG to either bankers or customers.
I believe that instead of reviewing the URDG, it would be wise to once again assess the usage of the rules and try to make it more known to others. Similarly, it would also be wise to simplify the language of ISP (which is widely used in the US - at least that I know) so that bankers and customers in our part of world understand it better. Therefore, I could only state that once we have first hand experience on the two rules, we may be entitled to contribute to the opinion on whether the two rules be combined or kept separate.
regards
Abdulkader
On pages 137 to 143 paragraphs 195 to 200, Dr. Affaki, provides similarities and differences between URDG and ISP 98. He confirms that the ISP is more detailed but also states that URGD focuses and concentrates on demand guarantee practices.
In my part of the world, the standby letters of credit that we issue or receive are usually subject to UCP500 and the demand guarantees or counter-guarantees that we issue or receive are also usually subject to a law rather than to rules of practices.
I don't know whether, internationally, the URDG is widely used but I know for a fact that most of our customers don't have much knowledge of either the URDG or the ISP. I also doubt whether many of the banks have the URDG, specifically recognized, in their internal policies and procedure, as acceptable rules of practice though, in reality, they may not refuse a counter-guarantee or a guarantee subject to such rules. I am also not aware or attended any seminar, exclusively made on URDG to either bankers or customers.
I believe that instead of reviewing the URDG, it would be wise to once again assess the usage of the rules and try to make it more known to others. Similarly, it would also be wise to simplify the language of ISP (which is widely used in the US - at least that I know) so that bankers and customers in our part of world understand it better. Therefore, I could only state that once we have first hand experience on the two rules, we may be entitled to contribute to the opinion on whether the two rules be combined or kept separate.
regards
Abdulkader
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
URDG REVISION
Jeremy,
I fully agree with your reasoning and would even go further. And just for the story. I participated at that time in Paris to the conference related to the new ISP98 rules. At the end of the day I had with collegues from other banks the most pleasant moment of the day, i.e. a drink together. Of course the discussion turned around the new rules. The summary of the discussion was that ISP98 will not be used within the banking community, except maybe for the USA for which the rules have been created. I must say that at that time I found the "verdict" quite too pessimistic.
Now after all those years I have the confirmation that at that time we were already right. ISP98 could even not exist. It does not bring anything else if not confusion.
The fact that no banks (I have come accross 2 times in 8 years) do issue stand-by L/C subject to ISP98 rules is significant about it's uselessness.
Roland
I fully agree with your reasoning and would even go further. And just for the story. I participated at that time in Paris to the conference related to the new ISP98 rules. At the end of the day I had with collegues from other banks the most pleasant moment of the day, i.e. a drink together. Of course the discussion turned around the new rules. The summary of the discussion was that ISP98 will not be used within the banking community, except maybe for the USA for which the rules have been created. I must say that at that time I found the "verdict" quite too pessimistic.
Now after all those years I have the confirmation that at that time we were already right. ISP98 could even not exist. It does not bring anything else if not confusion.
The fact that no banks (I have come accross 2 times in 8 years) do issue stand-by L/C subject to ISP98 rules is significant about it's uselessness.
Roland
URDG REVISION
Dear Abdulkader and Roland,
Thank you for taking the time to express your views.
Taking yours first, Abdulkader, I can confirm the URDG are not widely used internationally. Curiously, one of the reasons for this is that either the URDG does not in fact reflect international demand guarantee practice or that it creates contractual obligations that many banks do not want, viz (sub-) Articles 17, 20(a), 21, 25, 26 and (in the case of counter-guarantees) 27 & 28. My impression is that these matters tend not to be addressed in URDG related talks (unless, of course, I am speaking!).
As to your comment that demand guarantees or counter-guarantees that you issue or receive are usually subject to a law rather than to ‘rules’, I think -with the greatest respect- this is a false, or at least misleading, distinction to draw. Where an undertaking is issued subject to the UCP or ISP it is still subject to a particular jurisdiction’s law; it is just that it is usually silent on the subject (especially if a ‘documentary credit’). The URDG actually have law and jurisdiction provisions (Articles 27 & 28), unlike -regrettably - the UCP and ISP. Unfortunately, while applicable to direct guarantees they do not reflect international practice for counter-guarantees. In conclusion, all undertakings are subject to a particular jurisdiction’s law, it is just that some are subject to a set of ‘rules’ (or what I believe would be more accurately described as ‘standard contractual terms’) in addition.
Lastly I would be surprised if it were the case that many banks throughout the world would not have the URDG (or ISP for that matter) specifically recognised in their internal policies and procedures as being acceptable. After all, and I apologise if I sound condescending, to understand them all that is required is simply for a bank official -well versed in demand guarantees and standbys- to read the contents of these publications and the related commentaries.
Turning to you, Roland, I can certainly say that my own bank issues -and receives- a good many standbys subject to the ISP. Nonetheless, the majority remain subject to the UCP. I can only assume inertia / ignorance, or perhaps even a hostility based on a ‘not invented here’ mentality, is largely to blame. (I also accept -as intimated by Abdulkader- that there are those -whose first language is not English- who are intimidated by the ISP’s drafting.) This is because I am firmly of the view that if one is a beneficiary or a bank the ISP is clearly preferable to the UCP, in the case of standbys (or the URDG in the case of demand guarantees), and therefore in a well informed market place the ISP would dominate.
Regards, Jeremy
Thank you for taking the time to express your views.
Taking yours first, Abdulkader, I can confirm the URDG are not widely used internationally. Curiously, one of the reasons for this is that either the URDG does not in fact reflect international demand guarantee practice or that it creates contractual obligations that many banks do not want, viz (sub-) Articles 17, 20(a), 21, 25, 26 and (in the case of counter-guarantees) 27 & 28. My impression is that these matters tend not to be addressed in URDG related talks (unless, of course, I am speaking!).
As to your comment that demand guarantees or counter-guarantees that you issue or receive are usually subject to a law rather than to ‘rules’, I think -with the greatest respect- this is a false, or at least misleading, distinction to draw. Where an undertaking is issued subject to the UCP or ISP it is still subject to a particular jurisdiction’s law; it is just that it is usually silent on the subject (especially if a ‘documentary credit’). The URDG actually have law and jurisdiction provisions (Articles 27 & 28), unlike -regrettably - the UCP and ISP. Unfortunately, while applicable to direct guarantees they do not reflect international practice for counter-guarantees. In conclusion, all undertakings are subject to a particular jurisdiction’s law, it is just that some are subject to a set of ‘rules’ (or what I believe would be more accurately described as ‘standard contractual terms’) in addition.
Lastly I would be surprised if it were the case that many banks throughout the world would not have the URDG (or ISP for that matter) specifically recognised in their internal policies and procedures as being acceptable. After all, and I apologise if I sound condescending, to understand them all that is required is simply for a bank official -well versed in demand guarantees and standbys- to read the contents of these publications and the related commentaries.
Turning to you, Roland, I can certainly say that my own bank issues -and receives- a good many standbys subject to the ISP. Nonetheless, the majority remain subject to the UCP. I can only assume inertia / ignorance, or perhaps even a hostility based on a ‘not invented here’ mentality, is largely to blame. (I also accept -as intimated by Abdulkader- that there are those -whose first language is not English- who are intimidated by the ISP’s drafting.) This is because I am firmly of the view that if one is a beneficiary or a bank the ISP is clearly preferable to the UCP, in the case of standbys (or the URDG in the case of demand guarantees), and therefore in a well informed market place the ISP would dominate.
Regards, Jeremy
-
RolandLeupi
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
URDG REVISION
Jeremy,
No hostility at all but practicability. Why should I subject guarantees under rules which complicate more than ease those transactions ?
The rules 325 have not been adopted by the banking community, even the 458 and the ISP98. I do not speak about the 524 which much probably have had a completely insignificant impact.
So some banks may issue guarantees issued under above rules but as far as I know and experience this practice is reduced to few exceptions.
As mentioned on the beginning issuing guarantees under one of those rules complicate things much more than facilitate them.
This is much probably also the reason why banks generally so not issue guarantees under same.
Roland
No hostility at all but practicability. Why should I subject guarantees under rules which complicate more than ease those transactions ?
The rules 325 have not been adopted by the banking community, even the 458 and the ISP98. I do not speak about the 524 which much probably have had a completely insignificant impact.
So some banks may issue guarantees issued under above rules but as far as I know and experience this practice is reduced to few exceptions.
As mentioned on the beginning issuing guarantees under one of those rules complicate things much more than facilitate them.
This is much probably also the reason why banks generally so not issue guarantees under same.
Roland
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
URDG REVISION
Dear Jeremy,
I would like to reconfirm that the guarantees we usually issue or receive (here counter-guarantees not in the form of Standby Letters of Credit Issued subject to UCP) are not subject to ISP, URDG or any other codified set of rules of practice and that any interpretation to the terms stated in the guarantees we issue or receive are usually subject to governing Law, example Saudi Law. In fact the language used is usually as follows: "This guarantee is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." The distinction here I believe is that when the applicable law is applied, it would apply to the text of the guarantee and to the rules of practice to which the guarantee is subject to since such rules of practice become an integral part of the guarantee unless expressly stated. Where the guarantee is not subject to rules of practice the applicable law would apply to the expressly stated guarantee text. That does not mean that court may not apply any rules of practice for the interpretation of the terms in the guarantee.
We have also specific rules (formats) to follow when we issue guarantees in favour of our (Saudi) government entities or when we advise foreign banks guarantees in favour of such entities. I also well acknowledge that the codified rules of practice such as UCP / ISP / URDG are not set to establish international applicable law. I believe ICC Publication 633, Documentary Credit Law, makes that very clear. This I hope would clear the cloud in the statement I made in my first posting.
Well, when I was referring to the policies and procedures, I was not questioning any of the banks capabilities of understanding the rules(ISP/URDG) but, because of the scarcity of their usage, doubting whether the internal policies and procedures of most of the banks in our part of the world would expressly refer to such rules. I have noted that this concept is also supported by others. I would like to quote the following statement which appears on page 10 of ICC Publication 631 "A User's Handbook to the URDG": "Indeed, practitioners in a number of countries are still unaware that the URDG exists. The rules are also frequently misconstrued……….."
Lastly I would like to recommend ICC Publication 631 to anyone who is intersted to explore more on URDG. One may or may not agree to the elaboration provided in the publication but the following may give insight to articles 17, 20(a), 21, 25, 26, 27 & 28 which may have been subject to controversies:
1) The Payment of URDG Guarantee – Paragraphs 96 - 108
2) The Guarantor and Instructing Party's duties when receiving a demand for payment – Paragraphs 113 – 124
3) Extend or Pay Demand - Paragraphs 125 – 130
4) Termination of URDG Guarantee – Paragraphs 131 – 148
5) Governing Law & Jurisdiction – Paragraphs 149 - 170
best regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/18/2006 9:12:04 AM]
I would like to reconfirm that the guarantees we usually issue or receive (here counter-guarantees not in the form of Standby Letters of Credit Issued subject to UCP) are not subject to ISP, URDG or any other codified set of rules of practice and that any interpretation to the terms stated in the guarantees we issue or receive are usually subject to governing Law, example Saudi Law. In fact the language used is usually as follows: "This guarantee is governed by and shall be construed in accordance with laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." The distinction here I believe is that when the applicable law is applied, it would apply to the text of the guarantee and to the rules of practice to which the guarantee is subject to since such rules of practice become an integral part of the guarantee unless expressly stated. Where the guarantee is not subject to rules of practice the applicable law would apply to the expressly stated guarantee text. That does not mean that court may not apply any rules of practice for the interpretation of the terms in the guarantee.
We have also specific rules (formats) to follow when we issue guarantees in favour of our (Saudi) government entities or when we advise foreign banks guarantees in favour of such entities. I also well acknowledge that the codified rules of practice such as UCP / ISP / URDG are not set to establish international applicable law. I believe ICC Publication 633, Documentary Credit Law, makes that very clear. This I hope would clear the cloud in the statement I made in my first posting.
Well, when I was referring to the policies and procedures, I was not questioning any of the banks capabilities of understanding the rules(ISP/URDG) but, because of the scarcity of their usage, doubting whether the internal policies and procedures of most of the banks in our part of the world would expressly refer to such rules. I have noted that this concept is also supported by others. I would like to quote the following statement which appears on page 10 of ICC Publication 631 "A User's Handbook to the URDG": "Indeed, practitioners in a number of countries are still unaware that the URDG exists. The rules are also frequently misconstrued……….."
Lastly I would like to recommend ICC Publication 631 to anyone who is intersted to explore more on URDG. One may or may not agree to the elaboration provided in the publication but the following may give insight to articles 17, 20(a), 21, 25, 26, 27 & 28 which may have been subject to controversies:
1) The Payment of URDG Guarantee – Paragraphs 96 - 108
2) The Guarantor and Instructing Party's duties when receiving a demand for payment – Paragraphs 113 – 124
3) Extend or Pay Demand - Paragraphs 125 – 130
4) Termination of URDG Guarantee – Paragraphs 131 – 148
5) Governing Law & Jurisdiction – Paragraphs 149 - 170
best regards
Abdulkader
[edited 10/18/2006 9:12:04 AM]
URDG REVISION
Thanks to you both for your further views / clarifications.
Roland, I quite agree that the demand guarantee world appears to get on quite well without a set of standard rules (at least from a banker’s perspective) and how it might be thought that the URDG (or any successor rules) are an answer to a problem that does not exist. Nonetheless, I believe a ‘good’ set of ICC rules would, in fact, make matters less -and not more- complicated for banks involved in the world of demand guarantees, by offering operational risk and cost of processing benefits, and that the ISP offers an excellent basis to achieve this. Of course, I accept you are at liberty to disagree.
Abdulkader, no need to re-confirm; I can assure you I fully understood your point regarding your local guarantee practice and also that I am familiar with it by reason of my experience processing international guarantees business over a number of years. Similarly in the case of my bank’s own specimen international guarantee texts these are not stated to be subject to the URDG (like, I can confidently say, all the major UK banks) and state that ‘This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of England the courts of which country shall have sole jurisdiction to adjudicate on any and all claims directly or indirectly relating hereto …’.
My point was simply that if your bank issued:
1. a guarantee subject to the URDG (that was silent in its text as to law and jurisdiction) it would still be governed by and be construed in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of Article 27.
2. a standby (or confirmed one) stated to be subject to the UCP or ISP in favour of a Saudi Arabian beneficiary, it would still be governed by and be construed in accordance with laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the laws and regulations of the KSA relating to the determination of applicable law.
In other words, the presence of ICC rules make a guarantee / standby no less subject to a particular country’s law or the jurisdiction of its courts than their absence.
As to scarcity of usage, I assumed most banks would prepare themselves in advance for possible requests to handle guarantee / standby transactions stated to be subject to the URDG / ISP, rather than have to decline their customer’s request through ignorance of -or lack of preparation in relation to- the relevant rules. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Regards, Jeremy
Roland, I quite agree that the demand guarantee world appears to get on quite well without a set of standard rules (at least from a banker’s perspective) and how it might be thought that the URDG (or any successor rules) are an answer to a problem that does not exist. Nonetheless, I believe a ‘good’ set of ICC rules would, in fact, make matters less -and not more- complicated for banks involved in the world of demand guarantees, by offering operational risk and cost of processing benefits, and that the ISP offers an excellent basis to achieve this. Of course, I accept you are at liberty to disagree.
Abdulkader, no need to re-confirm; I can assure you I fully understood your point regarding your local guarantee practice and also that I am familiar with it by reason of my experience processing international guarantees business over a number of years. Similarly in the case of my bank’s own specimen international guarantee texts these are not stated to be subject to the URDG (like, I can confidently say, all the major UK banks) and state that ‘This Guarantee shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of England the courts of which country shall have sole jurisdiction to adjudicate on any and all claims directly or indirectly relating hereto …’.
My point was simply that if your bank issued:
1. a guarantee subject to the URDG (that was silent in its text as to law and jurisdiction) it would still be governed by and be construed in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of Article 27.
2. a standby (or confirmed one) stated to be subject to the UCP or ISP in favour of a Saudi Arabian beneficiary, it would still be governed by and be construed in accordance with laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, by virtue of the laws and regulations of the KSA relating to the determination of applicable law.
In other words, the presence of ICC rules make a guarantee / standby no less subject to a particular country’s law or the jurisdiction of its courts than their absence.
As to scarcity of usage, I assumed most banks would prepare themselves in advance for possible requests to handle guarantee / standby transactions stated to be subject to the URDG / ISP, rather than have to decline their customer’s request through ignorance of -or lack of preparation in relation to- the relevant rules. Perhaps I was mistaken.
Regards, Jeremy
-
AbdulkaderBazara
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
URDG REVISION
Dear Jeremy,
Thanks for your understanding. As for the applicable law I believe we had in the past discussed it in more details. Check yours and others (including myself) postings between Feb 05 to Feb 11, 2002.
Best regards.
Abdulkader
Thanks for your understanding. As for the applicable law I believe we had in the past discussed it in more details. Check yours and others (including myself) postings between Feb 05 to Feb 11, 2002.
Best regards.
Abdulkader
URDG REVISION
Interesting string of messages. Based on the USDollar value of standby letters of credit issued by banks in the US, approximately 70-80% of standbys in the US are issued subject to the ISP98. Billions of USDollars.
Those of you from non-US banks might be surprised if you checked the portfolio of your US branches!
Several of the largest of the US banks adopted the position several years ago of permitting their applicants to choose UCP or ISP98 for their Standby LCs, and once applicants and beneficiaries actually read the ISP98 they, and especially their attorneys, greatly preferred the ISP98.
The US voted for the last URDG revision. We took the position (at the time US banks weren’t doing guarantees, except Morgan), that we would not stand in the way of the revision and not take the position that we don’t need it so no one else does. While the US didn’t have anyone on the working group, we commented on most, it not all of the drafts.
As a member of the URDG Task Force, and speaking only for myself - not for the US - I doubt that a revised URDG will find much acceptance in the US market, because US lawyers, bankers, applicants and beneficiaries find the ISP98 easy to read and understand, in agreement with the UN Convention (which the ICC has endorsed), and it addresses many of the problems associated with issuing these types of instruments under the UCP.
We discuss URDG usage at the URDG Task Force meetings - there are VERY FEW URDG instruments issued - I would estimate less than a dozen in the world based on the feedback in the Task Force.
This should not be read as a negative criticism of the task force leader or the members, simply a reality check on the present use of the URDG and the need for a revision if it is to become a true standard for the world. The Task Force is composed of dedicated bankers who have worked hard to support and spread the URDG.
I have championed use of the URDG in the US and banks here were just not interested.
That said - if a revision is undertaken, all countries issuing these types of instruments should participate and comment actively.
Best Regards and hope to see you all in Paris.
Don
Those of you from non-US banks might be surprised if you checked the portfolio of your US branches!
Several of the largest of the US banks adopted the position several years ago of permitting their applicants to choose UCP or ISP98 for their Standby LCs, and once applicants and beneficiaries actually read the ISP98 they, and especially their attorneys, greatly preferred the ISP98.
The US voted for the last URDG revision. We took the position (at the time US banks weren’t doing guarantees, except Morgan), that we would not stand in the way of the revision and not take the position that we don’t need it so no one else does. While the US didn’t have anyone on the working group, we commented on most, it not all of the drafts.
As a member of the URDG Task Force, and speaking only for myself - not for the US - I doubt that a revised URDG will find much acceptance in the US market, because US lawyers, bankers, applicants and beneficiaries find the ISP98 easy to read and understand, in agreement with the UN Convention (which the ICC has endorsed), and it addresses many of the problems associated with issuing these types of instruments under the UCP.
We discuss URDG usage at the URDG Task Force meetings - there are VERY FEW URDG instruments issued - I would estimate less than a dozen in the world based on the feedback in the Task Force.
This should not be read as a negative criticism of the task force leader or the members, simply a reality check on the present use of the URDG and the need for a revision if it is to become a true standard for the world. The Task Force is composed of dedicated bankers who have worked hard to support and spread the URDG.
I have championed use of the URDG in the US and banks here were just not interested.
That said - if a revision is undertaken, all countries issuing these types of instruments should participate and comment actively.
Best Regards and hope to see you all in Paris.
Don
URDG REVISION
Don,
Thanks for adding your thoughts. My ‘reactions’ to them are:
1. As the URDG covers demand guarantees, and as demand guarantees and standbys are legally and functionally the same, at the time the URDG was drafted and published US banks were presumably -in fact- issuing many demand guarantees and in large values, it’s just that they were calling them ‘standby letters of credit’. (The ‘guarantees’ Morgan was issuing were presumably of a surety -rather than demand- nature?) Perhaps the term ‘demand guarantee’ bamboozled U.S. bankers or they were happy to stick with the UCP at that time?
2. I honestly see little point, from a banker’s perspective, in championing the URDG when:
A. it contains significant drawbacks.
B. life would be much simpler if there were one set of rules, and not two, for ‘documentary default undertakings’ (I accept not all ‘demand guarantees’ and not all ‘standbys’ necessarily cover default).
Of course, I can understand a beneficiary or more particularly an applicant, could have a different perspective.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 10/20/2006 3:51:03 PM]
Thanks for adding your thoughts. My ‘reactions’ to them are:
1. As the URDG covers demand guarantees, and as demand guarantees and standbys are legally and functionally the same, at the time the URDG was drafted and published US banks were presumably -in fact- issuing many demand guarantees and in large values, it’s just that they were calling them ‘standby letters of credit’. (The ‘guarantees’ Morgan was issuing were presumably of a surety -rather than demand- nature?) Perhaps the term ‘demand guarantee’ bamboozled U.S. bankers or they were happy to stick with the UCP at that time?
2. I honestly see little point, from a banker’s perspective, in championing the URDG when:
A. it contains significant drawbacks.
B. life would be much simpler if there were one set of rules, and not two, for ‘documentary default undertakings’ (I accept not all ‘demand guarantees’ and not all ‘standbys’ necessarily cover default).
Of course, I can understand a beneficiary or more particularly an applicant, could have a different perspective.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 10/20/2006 3:51:03 PM]