.png){kind=icon}
- JR Adams , ‘ The Vagliano Case ’ (1891) 7 LQR 295. Although only a casenote, it explains very well the principle on which the rule that a banker is not entitled to debit his customer when the bank has paid on a bill of exchange which has a forged indorsement. It also explains why in Vagliano’s case, since the acceptor had no liability to anyone on the bill, that principle did not apply. As an aside, the text at the bottom of p 296 gives a wonderful insight into the insularity of Victorian English lawyers.
- Malcolm Clarke , ‘ Bankers Commercial Credits among High Trees ’ (1974) 33 CLJ 260. Deals, among other things with the competing explanations why an Issuing Bank has an obligation to pay the seller, the effect of not opening a credit in the time provided in the contract of sale, whether a letter of credit is an absolute of conditional payment, and the issues involved in waiver and estoppel and the opening of a non-conforming credit.
- Roy Goode , ‘ Abstract Payment Undertakings ’ in Peter Cane and Jane Stapleton (eds), Essays for Patrick Atiyah (Clarendon Press, 1991) Among other things, this essay contains a careful analysis of the problems with attempting to explain how the Issuing or Confirming Bank can be under an obligation to pay the beneficiary under a letter of credit and deals with the conceptual difficulties with the current form of the fraud and illegality exceptions to the autonomy of credit principle.
- LP Hitchens , ‘ Holders for Value and their Status: Clifford Chance v Silver ’ [1993] JBL 571. Until Clifford Chance , writers had assumed that to be a holder in due course under s 29(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the person must themselves have given value and not be deemed to have done so by virtue of s 27(2). Hitchens explores the rationale for the decision in Clifford Chance that this was not the case.
- Richard Hooley , ‘ Fraud and Letters of Credit: Is There a Nullity Exception? ’ (2002) 61 CLJ 279. Provides a number of reasons, both legal and commercial, why the law ought not to require banks to accept documents, though conforming on their face, but which the bank knows to be void in the context of the Montrod case.
- AH Hudson , ‘ Time and Promissory Notes ’ (1962) 25 MLR 593. Although primarily an analysis of Williamson v Rider [1962] All ER 268 (CA), this note deals with the requirements for the certainty of the date for payment under a bill of exchange, noting how the courts seem to have varied the degree of precision required.
- Agasha Mugasha , ‘ Enjoining the Beneficiary’s Claim on a Letter of Credit or Bank Guarantee ’ [2004] JBL 515. Explores the grounds for injuncting a bank from paying or restraining the beneficiary from claiming under a letter of credit including nullity, unconscionable conduct, and defects in the underlying contract. There is also consideration of the standard of proof required.
- Peter Ellinger, ‘ The Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP): Their Development and the Current Revisions ’ [2007] LMCLQ 152. A full and scholarly analysis of the UCP 600, in contrast to previous editions and in the context of banking and commercial practice. The following articles are also worth considering in relation to understanding the UCP 600:
- Ebenezer Adodo , ‘ A Presentee Bank’s Duty when Examining a Tender of Documents Under the Uniform Custom and Practice for Documentary Credits 600’ [2009] JIBLR 566
- Charles Debattista , ‘ The New UCP 600—Changes to the Tender of the Seller’s Shipping Documents under Letters of Credit ’ [ 2007 ] JBL 329.
- Koji Takahashi , ‘ The Introduction of Article 12(b) in the UCP 600: Was it Really a Step Forward ?’ [2009] JIBLR 285.