As per UCP 11b A preliminary advice of the issuance of a credit or amendment ("pre-advice") shall only be sent if the issuing bank is prepared to issue the operative credit or amendment. An issuing bank that sends a pre-advice is irrevocably committed to issue the operative credit or amendment, without delay, in terms not inconsistent with the pre-advice.
.
UCP seems to be silent about issuing bank's obligations against the beneficiary if pre- advice expired without that lc has been issued.
How could it be regulated? Some ICC Opinion?
Thanks in advance for all comments
.
[edited 5/3/2012 10:35:59 PM]
pre-advised L/C
-
SladjanaSkakic
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:27 pm
pre-advised L/C
The pre-advice arose, I believe, because in the era of cable & telex the teletransmission of credits was expensive, the messages being quite long. In the age of Swift the teletransmission of credits is ‘dirt cheap’. Therefore, pre-advices simply should not be used and I have no doubt 11(b) has been retained for no other reason than it it does no harm. Given this, I do not think the ICC should waste its time on this matter. Quite simply in the most unlikely event of someone bizarrely issuing a pre-advice and the beneficiary wanting to enforce their rights because the credit was not issued my view is that they should simply have to sue the issuing bank and leave it to the court to establish what are the issuing bank’s exact obligations.