In this article, the author reviews the approach of English courts to limits of autonomy principle and tries to answer the following research questions: What obligations should the applicant fulfil while opening a credit in accordance with the underlying contract? What are the seller’s remedies when the buyer fails to perform his duties regarding opining and performance of the credit? On the other hand, what are the seller’s duties in the process of opening the credit and what will be the buyer’s remedy in case of his failure? What is the legal position regarding variation of the credit? What is the position of court regarding absolute or conditional nature of the credit? In order to answer the above research questions, paper is divided into seven parts: after the introductory comments, the second part will review the nature of the buyer’s obligation in opening the credit. The third part is focused on effect of non-compliance by the buyer and the fourth part studies the variation of the credit and its effect on party’s rights within the underlying contract. Part five deals with the buyer’s rights after opening the credit while part six will discuss the absolute or conditional nature of the payment obligation to pay under the LC. Last but not the least, the final part will provide some concluding remarks.
1. Alavi, H. (2015), “Autonomy Principle and Fraud Exception in Documentary Letters of Credit, a Comparative Study between United States and England”. International and Comparative Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, 45
2. Alavi, H, (2016a), Arbitration and LC Fraud Disputes: a Comparative Approach, Russian Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. (8), 2, 70
3. Alavi, H. (2016b). Documentary Letters of Credit, Legal Nature and Sources of Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 17(31), 106-121.
4. Alavi, H (2016c), Illegality as an exception to principle of autonomy in Documentary Letters of Credit; A comparative approach, Kor. UL Rev., 20, 3
5. Alavi, H. (2016d). Mitigating the Risk of Fraud in Documentary Letters of Credit. Baltic Journal of European Studies, 6(1), pp.139-156
6. Alavi, H. (2016e) “documentary letters of credit, principle of strict compliance and risk of documentary discrepancy.” Korea University Law Review 19.단일호 : 3-21
7. Arkins, J. (2000). Snow White v. Frost White: The New Cold War in Banking Law?, journal of international banking law, 15(2), 30-41.
8. Bridge, M. G. (2012). Benjamin’s sale of goods (Vol. 11). Sweet & Maxwell. § 23-068 p. 1685
9. Berger, S. R., ‘The Effects of Issuing Bank Insolvency on Letters of Credit’ 21 Harvard International Law Journal (1980)161, at. 175
10. Chitty, J. (2012). Chitty on contracts: General principles (Vol. 1). Sweet & Maxwell. at § 23-034 p 1156
11. Chorley & Smart, (1990), Leading Cases in the Law of Banking, 6s’ ed., (Sweet & Maxwell, London,) pp. 265-268
12. Ellinger P, Neo N, (2010), The Law and Practice of Documentary Letters of Credit, 84
13. Guest. A.G., (1997), Benjamin’s Sale of Goods, Fifth edition. Sweet & Maxwell, London, n15 at § 23-064p. 1684.
14. Goode. R, (2004), Commercial Law, Penguin, 972
15. Hedley, W. (1997). Bills of exchange and bankers’ documentary credits. LLP. p. 287
16. Malek. A, Quest. D, (2009), Jack. Documentary credits: the law and practice of documentary credits including standby credits, and demand guarantees, Tottle,
17. Rosenblith, R. M., ‘Modifying Letters of Credit: The Rules and the Reality’,19 Uniform Commercial Code Law Journal (1987) 245, at 246, n. 3
18. Schmitthoff, C. M., (1990), Schmitthof’s Export Trade: The Law & Practice of International Trade 9th ed (London, Stevens & Sons,) p. 421
19. Tiplady, D. (1989), Introduction to the Law of International Trade, London, p. 176.
20. Todd P. (2013). Bills of lading and bankers’ documentary credits. Taylor & Francis, 61
21. Ventris, FM., (1975), ‘New Problems of Financing Oil Shipments’ LMCLQ, p. 38 at 42
22. Ventris, F.M. (1990), Bankers’ Documentary Credits, 3 rd, Lloyd’s of London Press Ltd, p p. 85-86.