 |
Feedback to "Comments on March 2006 Draft of the UCP 600"
|
|
Feedback to "Comments on March 2006 Draft of the UCP 600"
|
Disclaimer
- The names of the parties, as well as the data and information in the cases stated below, have been sanitized in order to protect the identity of the parties involved. The complexities of the cases have also been simplified to facilitate easy understanding of the key issues involved.
- Our expert's opinions do not necessarily reflect the views of the ICC or the ICC Commission on Banking Technique and Practice. No legal imputation should be attached to any of the contents of the cases and no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements or opinions caused by negligence or otherwise. Our expert's opinions are given for your reference only and you should not rely upon or act on our opinions, of which we are not held liable. You should consult your legal counsel or other experts for their opinions in your specific cases.
- No article, opinion, or comment can be reproduced in whole or in part without our express written permission.
Dear Ravi,
I share your views, especially on the definition of the applicant. A Chinese proverb describes this very well: "Something said yet nothing is said".
My suggestion to include the applicant bank as the applicant is ignored too. Upon my suggestions, it lands in the ISP98 definition for an applicant anyway. Any inconsistency between ISP and UCP may lead to problems in the future. Let us wait and see!
Best regards,
T. O.
 |
(416) 298-5881 |  |
(416) 292-5535 |
|