|
[6] 最典型的判例是美国一宗近期的判例：Banco del Estado v. Navistar International Transport Corp. U.S.D.C.N.D Illinois Eastern Division September 25,1996.转引自Banking Law Reports 1997 Aug. Issue 7.该判例中，开证行列举了7个诉因，分别是：违反信用证项下交单保证、欺诈、疏忽的错误陈述、违反买卖合同、违反特殊货物的特殊用途的保证、违反默示的契约善意、违反消费者欺诈保护法。该案中被告即受益人申请驳回上述7个诉因的申请被法院准许。很多美国的信用证纠纷中当事人都提出侵权之诉，但是似乎获得法院支持的美国判例很少。见美国著名学术文章James J. White & Robert S. Summers, 3 Uniform Commercial Code S 26-3(4th ed. 1995).以及俄勒冈州联邦上诉法院（第九巡回区）的判例Shokai v. US National Bank of Oregon com/9th/9635175/html, 该案开证申请人主张侵权被法院驳回，在该案中原告也提出疏忽和错误陈述之诉均被驳回，因为疏忽原则会损害统一商法典，同时法官引用许多判例Confeccoes Texteis de Vouzela, LDA v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 994 F. 2d 851,854(D.C.Cir. 1993); Instituto Nacional de Commercializacion Agricola (Indeca) v. Continental Illinois Nat’l Bank, 858 F.2d 1264,1269(7th Cir.1988); Auto Servicio San Ignacio, S.R.L. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana de Navegacion, 765 F.2d 1306, 1308 (5th Cir. 1985).
[7] 比如Weyerhaeuser Company v. Israel Discount Bank of New York U.S.D.C.SD New York Aug. 15,1995.以及Sheerbonnet Ltd. v. American Express Bank Ltd. U.S.D.C. 转引自Banking Law Report 1996 Aug. Issue 8.
[8] H.C. Gutteridge, Maurice Mergrah, The Law of Banker’s Commercial Credit, 1984, see 24.
[9] 杨良宜《信用证》第27页说：信用证的做法带来一连串合约：首先是申请人（买方）与开证银行，在是开证银行与保兑银行，或是开证银行与受益人（卖方）。他们之间有了争议，都是以合约法原则来处理，包括去解释它一般会去合并的UCP标准条文。
[10] 纽约州的近期判例First Commercial Bank v. Gotham, supra. 64 N.Y. 2d, at 294,以及All Service Exportacao v. Banco Bamerindus, 921 F. 2d 32,34,以及最近的美国判例Banco general Runinahui，S.A., v. Citibank international,E.M. Wade & CO., Unite States Courts of Appeals 11th Cir. 1996, No.95-4444说，一个信用证的经典情形是三方的三个关系。但是也有乔治亚州的判例说一个信用证有三方两个关系。Dibbrell Brothers International S.A. v. Banca Nazionnale Lavoro, United States Court of Appeals 11th Cir.1994.
[11] See United City Merchants (Investment) Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada [1985] 1 A.C.168; per Lord Dipolock.虽然上诉法院的法官拒绝同意此案上诉到上议院，但此案后来仍上诉到上议院，United City Merchants (Investment) Ltd. v. Royal Bank of Canada [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1.见第6页。
[12] 比如美国联邦第四巡回区上诉法院一宗1997年1月10日作出判决涉及的两方原告，但是被告有10多个，相互之间的关系错综复杂，有10多个基础合同和相互的合伙、担保、借贷、存款、抵押、担保债券发行等合同，判决书长达30多页。
[13] Carol Proctor, The Legal Role of the Bill of Lading, Sea Waybill, and Multimodal Transport Document, Interlegal, Pretoria, 1997. See 2.
[14]纽约州的近期判例First Commercial Bank v. Gotham, supra. 64 N.Y. 2d, at 294,以及All Service Exportacao v. Banco Bamerindus, 921 F. 2d 32,34,以及最近的美国判例Banco general Runinahui，S.A., v. Citibank international,E.M. Wade & CO., Unite States Courts of Appeals 11th Cir. 1996, No.95-4444说，一个信用证的经典情形是三方的三个关系。但是也有乔治亚州的判例说一个信用证有三方两个关系。Dibbrell Brothers International S.A. v. Banca Nazionnale Lavoro, United States Court of Appeals 11th Cir.1994.
[15] 比如美国联邦第三巡回法院1994年5月一宗涉及FDIC的案件，涉及将近30个当事人。
[16] Thomsen, H. B. & Wheble, B. Trade Facilitation and Legal Problems of Trade Data Interchange. International Business Law, 1985, p. 313. 转引自Carol Proctor, The Legal Role of the Bill of Lading, Sea Waybill, and Multimodal Transport Document, Interlegal, Pretoria, 1997. See 2.
[17]Clarendon Ltd. v. The Chase Manhanttan Bank N.A. and State Bank of Saurashtra. 1994WL 97153 (S.D.N.Y.).
[18] Alaska Textile Co. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 982 F.2d 813, 815 (2d Cir. 1992).转引自[18]Clarendon Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. and State Bank of Saurashtra. 1994WL 97153 (S.D.N.Y.).
[19] Venizelos, S.A. v. Chase Mahanttan Bank, 425 F.2d 461,465 (2d Cir. 1970).
[20] 关于信用证争议的法院管辖及法律冲突问题。对于修改前U.C.C.5的信用证冲突法规则的详细分析，请见上引Burton v. McCullough, ESQ. Letters of Credit, 第2章。关于修改后U.C.C.5的信用证案件的管辖法院和准据法问题和修改前存在重大差别。这是U.C.C.5 1995年修改的重要内容之一。评论说目前的法律给予信用证交易的当事人以几乎完全的选择信用证准据法和管辖法院的自由。见James G. Barnes and James E. Byrne, Revision of U.C.C. Article 5, The Business lawyer, Vol. 50, August 1995,p1450-1451。另外关于信用证的法律冲突问题的理论论述，请见英国著名的学者施米托夫教授（Clive M. Schmitthoff）的一篇文章，专门论述英国判例法下信用证的法律冲突问题，Clive M. Schmitthoff’s Select Essays on International Trade Law, Edited by Chia-Jui Chen, 1988 by kluwer Academic Publishers. p.573,“Conflict of Laws Issues Ralating to Letters of Credit: An English Perspective.”英国目前的立场见1972年的判例Alan & Co. v. E1 Nasr Export and Import [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 321, 323, C.A. Per Lord Dennning.（此案后来上诉到上议院），并经1976年的Offshore International S.A. v. Banco Central S.A. [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 40.和 European Bank v. Punjab Bank [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 651 Q.B.进一步确认的。作者将有另文论述，在此讨论超出本文范围。
[21] Michael Rowe Letters of Credit, Published by Eorumoney Publication, 1985 London, p.36-40关于U.C.C.与UCP两者之间盲点的比较。
[22] Paolo S. Grassi, Letter of credit Transactions: The Banks’ Position in determining Documentary Compliance. A Comparative Evaluation under U.S., Swiss and German Law. 7 Pace Int’l L. Rev. 81.Winter, 1995.见脚注69。
[23] 566 S.W. 2d 358, 24 U.C.C. 939(Tex. Civ. App. 1978),转引自Handbook of Law Under The Uniform Commercial Code, 1980, 2ed,By White & Summers 见714页。
[24] Countaulds No Am. Inc. v. North Carolina National Bank, 387 F. Supp. 92, 16 U.C.C. 1323 (M.D.N.C. 1975) Rev’d 528 F. 2d 802, 18 U.C.C. 467 (4th Cir. 1975).转引自Handbook of Law Under The Uniform Commercial Code ,1980, 2ed ,By White & Summers.见第714页。
|
