Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.658789
Title: Document examination and rejection under UCP 600
Author: Zhang, Jingbo
Awarding Body: University of Southampton
Current Institution: University of Southampton
Date of Award: 2015
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Thesis embargoed until 30 Jun 2018
Access through Institution:
Abstract:
Letters of credit, which are a well-recognised payment instrument, have bridged international trade between different countries. The UCP, which is often regarded as “soft regulation” has provided a solid backing for the operation of documentary credits and nowadays the latest revision, UCP600 is universally incorporated into nearly all letters of credit. This thesis focuses on two vital but controversial parts in a documentary credit operation, i.e. document examination and rejection under UCP600. The central research question addressed by this thesis is: Has the UCP600 provided a sufficient framework for banks to fulfil their obligations concerning document examination and rejection under documentary credits? This question can be divided into three separate issues. Firstly, what requirements should a bank fulfil during document examination and rejection as judged by the law of documentary credits and market expectations? Secondly, what requirements have been expressly or implicitly set out in the UCP600 regime? Finally, has the current UCP system provided a proper and sufficient framework to the addressed areas? If not, what should and can be done next? In order to answer the above questions, this thesis draws upon other ICC sources, such as the ISBP, the ICC Opinions and DOCDEX decisions, which are frequently missed in other academic works. The novelty of this thesis lies in a below-the-surface analysis of the controversial areas of UCP600 by using the experience gained from recent case law before suggesting ways to move forward. The merits of this thesis are not limited to observing the current loopholes in the UCP system, but also in endeavouring to solve current problems by providing feasible suggestions for improvement for the next UCP revision.
Supervisor: Lista, Andrea Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.658789  DOI: Not available
Keywords: K Law (General)
Share: