Our articles are written by experts in their field and include individual barristers, solicitors, academics, judges, and leading firms in relevant areas of practice. JIBFL offers authoritative insights into global banking and financial law, providing essential updates for legal practitioners and policymakers. Covering key topics like lending, security interests, derivatives, debt capital markets, banking and finance related disputes, crypto, FinTech and financial regulation, JIBFL serves as a trusted resource for navigating complex legal challenges and staying informed in the financial sector. If you would like to contribute, please email Amanda.Cohen2@lexisnexis.com.
Interpreting ICC standardised rules in trade finance disputes: courts take an international perspective
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Banking practice in areas of trade finance such as demand guarantees and letters of credit is standardised by a collection of contractual rules published by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The application of domestic contractual interpretation principles may risk inconsistency in the way such rules are construed between jurisdictions. However, in relation to the most commonly used rules (the UCP 600, which apply to letters of credit), several courts (including the English courts) have tried to ensure that the rules are interpreted consistently with reference to their international consequences, as opposed to strictly in accordance with the governing law of the contract. Two decisions of the English High Court and the Qatari Appellate Court demonstrate a trend towards construing other sets of ICC standardised rules in the same way as the UCP 600.
If you are already a User, sign in
Or you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.
Alternatively you can subscribe here to read unlimited content.
