• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.35-53
• /
• 2010

In connection with a non-cash payment through the banking system, "finality of payment" has acquired diverse meanings. In according to Section 4A-209(2), the acceptance by the beneficiary's bank by means of receiving payment "pursuant to section 4A-403(a)(1) or 4A-403(a)(2)," constitutes final settlement through a Federal Reserve Bank or through a funds-transfer system" or credit to the account of the beneficiary's bank. Above of all, Acceptance by beneficiary's bank is the most important. According to 4A-209(b), the beneficiary's bank can accept a payment order in one of four ways : First, by paying the beneficiary; obligating itself to pay the beneficiary or, Second, by notifying the beneficiary of receipt of the order or notifying the beneficiary that its account was credited or, Thirdly, by receiving full payment from the sender's order or Lastly, by passage of time, i.e., the opening of the next funds transfer business day of the bank following the payment date of the order. A beneficiary's bank is considered to have accepted a payment order when the earliest of the four means of acceptance occurs.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.123-140
• /
• 2007

This paper wants to suggest some issues on the acceptance of payment order in Electronic Funds Transfer of USA. The result can be summarized as fellows; First, originator's bank accepts a payment order when it executes the order. Secondly, beneficiary's bank accepts a payment order at the earliest of the following times: (1) when the bank pays the beneficiary as stated in Section 4A-405(a) or 4A-405(b), (2) when the bank notifies the beneficiary of receipt of the order or that the account of the beneficiary has been credited with respect to the order unless the notice indicates that the bank is rejecting the order or that funds with respect to the order may not be withdrawn or used until receipt of payment from of the order. (3) when the bank receives payment of the entire amount of the sender's order pursuant to Section 4A-403(a)(1) or 4A-403(a)(2). Lastly, the acceptance of a payment order cannot occur before the order is received by the receiving bank.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.49-70
• /
• 2020

Purpose - The UCP is recognized as the governing law for L/C transactions, but it covers only the general details of the transaction and does not cover all complex practices. In view of this limitation, this paper examines a negotiation transaction which is most actively utilized in L/C transactions via a thorough review of the UCP provisions, analyzes the problems of the negotiation clause in the UCP, and suggests appropriate countermeasures to deal with unnecessary litigation costs. By doing so, the parties involved in the negotiation transaction would be able to avoid financial costs such as having to pay for lawsuits. Design/methodology - The present study first differentiates the general types of L/Cs (e.g., sight payment L/C, deferred payment L/C, acceptance L/C, and negotiation L/C), explains and the Article 2 and Article 12(b) of the UCP 600 where the term 'negotiation' is used, digs into the drawbacks of 'negotiation' occurring under the UCP 600, and discusses solutions to the problems found by analyzing the drawbacks descriptively. Findings - After a review of the UCP provisions on negotiation in detail, several possible problems which may occur in practice were discovered. First, as the UCP stipulates, the negotiating bank will want to delay payment to the maximum extent possible and make payment on the banking day on which the issuing bank reimburses the amount. This may lead the beneficiary towards bankruptcy or put it in financial crisis. Second, when a fraudulent transaction occurs, the negotiating bank can neither request the issuing bank to reimburse nor can it exercise its recourse right against the beneficiary because it has obtained all the rights of the beneficiary by purchasing the documents. Third, there is a practice in which the beneficiary sells the documents to its transaction bank which is not the nominated bank if the nominated bank specified in the credit is located in a third country or the exporter has no relationship with the nominated bank in the credit. In this case, whether to accept this and reimburse the non-nominated negotiating bank entirely depends on the issuing bank's decision even though such practice frequently occurs in Korea. Originality/value - There has been little research effort pertaining to negotiation transactions in detail even though negotiation L/C transactions account for around 70% in world trade notwithstanding deferred payment L/Cs and acceptance L/Cs that are also negotiated in practice. Thus, if the negotiations clause under the UCP 600 provisions were reviewed and the drawbacks of the negotiation transactions most actively used in L/C transactions were identified and examined, specific countermeasures could ultimately help smoothen the operation of L/C transactions and prevent financial losses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.515-536
• /
• 2000

This study analyzes the U.S. case law which challenges the legal conclusions of the district court with respect to the applicability, and effect, of the doctrine of waiver and estoppel in addition to the doctrine of documentary cure. The impliations are as follows. First, the documentary cure requirement can not be interpreted to mean early enough to allow the beneficiary to cure and represent the documents before the presentment deadline or expiry date of letter of credit. The mere fact that the presentment period expired before the completion of bank's review and notification process does not compel any conclusion about whether the examiner spent a reasonable amount of time examining the documents. Indeed, the reasonable time requirement does not imply that banks examine a presentation out of order or hurry a decision based upon particular needs or desires of a beneficiary. Secondly, even if the doctrine of waiver can apply to letter of credit governed by the strict compliance standard, a one-time acceptance of discrepant documents by a bank does not waive the bank's right to insist upon conforming documents in all subsequent letter of credit transactions between the bank and beneficiary. Revised UCC Article 5 is highly persuasive on this point: waiver of discrepancies by issuer or an applicant in one or more presentation does not waive similar discrepancies in a future presentation. Neither the issuer nor the beneficiary can reasonably rely upon honor over past waivers as a basis for concluding that a future defective presentation will justify honor.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.433-456
• /
• 2012

The confirming bank undertakes to make payment to the beneficiary, provided that a complying presentation is made and complies with its confirmation. In case L/C fraud is evident, though, the confirming bank as well as the issuing bank does not have the obligation to make payment. That is, the confirming bank does not take the risks involving documentary fraud. The confirming bank cannot exercise the right to recourse toward the beneficiary or the nominated bank when the issuing bank finds the discrepancies which the confirming bank has not noticed. This is because under UCP600, the issuing bank or the confirming bank cannot refuse to make payment with the cause of documentary discrepancy after 5 banking days following the presentation of documents. Even if the issuing bank accepts the discrepant documents following the confirming bank's request to do so, the confirming bank does not have the responsibility for the confirmation. When under Usance Negotiation Credit, the confirming bank acts as the nominated bank, the confirming bank should make payment in no time if the beneficiary presents complying documents. Therefore, unless the confirming bank intends to make immediate payment, they should consider using Deferred Payment or Acceptance L/C in Usance Credit. It is also safer for the beneficiary to have the reimbursing bank's undertaking to the reimbursement than just have confirmation of the credit because in the latter case they may not have full payment due to disputes regarding discrepancies of the documents even if they have confirmation of the credit.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• pp.287-309
• /
• 2009

There were many changes regarding Negotiation of document under UCP 600. First of all, the definition of Negotiation was changed. The UCP 500 stated "Negotiation means the giving of value for drafts and documents by the bank authorized to negotiation", but the UCP 600 defines "negotiation" as following "negotiation means the purchase by the nominated bank of drafts and/or documents under a complying presentation". Under the UCP 600 the meaning of negotiation was more clear than UCP 500. Second UCP 600 permits all deferred payment credits be discountable or negotiable. This amended rule equated the deferred payment credit with banker's acceptance credit which was contrary with the nature and the practice of former deferred payment credit transaction. Third, UCP 600 has also provided for reimbursement rights for nominated banks and a conceptual basis for protecting nominated banks against beneficiary fraud. In this paper, the problems regarding negotiation of document under UCP600 was studied and the solutions for the problems occurring in appling UCP 600 in practical field was provided.