GR Semicolon EN

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author
Tolia, Ioanna
en
dc.date.accessioned
2018-05-29T10:15:06Z
dc.date.available
2018-05-30T00:00:11Z
dc.date.issued
2018-05-29
dc.identifier.uri
https://repository.ihu.edu.gr//xmlui/handle/11544/29198
dc.rights
Default License
dc.subject
Documentary letters of credit
en
dc.subject
Fraud
en
dc.subject
Nullity
en
dc.subject
Unconscionability
en
dc.subject
Illegality
en
dc.title
Recognized Exceptions to the Autonomy Principle in Documentary Letters of Credit: A Global Analysis
en
heal.type
masterThesis
en_US
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Letters of credit
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Fraud--Case studies
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Conflict of laws--Letters of credit
heal.keywordURI.LCSH
Documentary credit
heal.language
en
en_US
heal.access
free
en_US
heal.license
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
en_US
heal.recordProvider
School of Economics, Business Administration and Legal Studies, LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Mediation, Arbitration and Energy Law
en_US
heal.publicationDate
2018-05-25
heal.abstract
This thesis was written as part of the LLM in Transnational and European Commercial Law, Banking Law, Arbitration/Mediation at the International Hellenic University. Documentary letters of credit, have gained, over time, near universal acceptance as means of ensuring the payment process in international sales of goods. The structure and operation of documentary credit transactions is subjected to two fundamental and globally recognized principles, namely the autonomy principle and the principle of strict compliance. Documentary letters of credit rely on the autonomy of the credit as to the underlying contract for their appeal and commercial utility. In principle, insofar as the tendered documents strictly comply with the terms and conditions of the credit, the beneficiary is assured that payment is guaranteed. The aim of this study is to provide a critical and comparative analysis of the various exceptions to the principle of autonomy of documentary credits; namely, fraud, nullity, unconscionability and illegality. As the analysis will demonstrate, said concepts have received a non-consistent, fragmented treatment among common law jurisdictions, to the detriment of international commerce where certainty and predictability are of upmost value. In appraising these exceptions, the current study argues that the acceptance of the narrow fraud and nullity exceptions shall uphold the commercial utility and viability of the documentary credit system, while limiting interference as to the cardinal autonomy principle. Conversely, this research shall reject the prospective general recognition of the unconscionability and illegality exceptions on the grounds that said concepts utterly erode the independent and irrevocable assurance of payment provided to the beneficiary-exporter under the credit, obliterating the very essence of documentary credits. In balancing the autonomy principle and its exceptions, it is argued that the ICC, considering its expertise in regulating international documentary credit transactions, constitutes the appropriate body to provide the pertinent regulation. Keywords: documentary letters of credit, fraud, nullity, unconscionability, illegality
en
heal.tableOfContents
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................. IV CONTENTS........................................................................................................................V 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1 1.1 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF DOCUMENTARY CREDITS LAW .............................................3 1.1.1 Doctrine of Strict Compliance ...................................................................3 1.1.2 Autonomy of the Credit.............................................................................5 2. FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE AUTONOMY PRINCIPLE.................................................8 2.1 GENERAL REMARKS ....................................................................................................8 2.2 THE FRAUD EXCEPTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .............................................11 2.2.1 Prior to the introduction of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) .........11 2.2.2 Following the Introduction of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in 1952 12 2.2.3 Following the Revision of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in 199515 2.3 THE FRAUD RULE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM ..................................................................17 2.4 THE FRAUD RULE IN CANADA .....................................................................................23 2.5 LEGAL BASIS OF THE FRAUD EXCEPTION ........................................................................25 2.5.1 Maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio....................................................25 2.5.2 Implied Term in the Contract as a matter of Ordinary Contract Principle 26 2.6 INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND THE FRAUD EXCEPTION ....................................28 2.6.1 The UCP Rules .........................................................................................28 2.6.2 The UNCITRAL Convention on Independent Guarantees and Standby Letters of Credit................................................................................................29 3. OTHER RECOGNIZED EXCEPTIONS TO THE AUTONOMY PRINCIPLE.......................31 3.1 THE NULLITY EXCEPTION............................................................................................31 3.1.1 Definition.................................................................................................31 -v- 3.1.2 Legal Recognition....................................................................................32 3.1.3 Arguments Against the Recognition of a General Nullity Exception ......33 3.1.4 Arguments in Favor of Recognizing a General Nullity Exception............36 3.2 UNCONSCIONABILITY.................................................................................................37 3.3 THE ILLEGALITY EXCEPTION.........................................................................................40 4. COMPARATIVE AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS ................................................................43 5. CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................49 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................53
en
heal.advisorName
Nousia, Kyriaki
el
heal.committeeMemberName
Nousia, Kyriaki
en
heal.academicPublisher
IHU
en
heal.academicPublisherID
ihu
en_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Related Items