信用證案例分析

1、信用證案例分析,程 軍中國銀行總行國際結(jié)算部總監(jiān)ICC CHINA 信用證專家組成員2006年2月25日 上海,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,KEY ISSUE ONE,LC FRAUD(信用證欺詐問題),Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,1、UCP中沒有信用證欺詐的規(guī)定。 2、UCP中也沒有規(guī)定信用證欺詐的救濟(jì)。 3、尋求司法救濟(jì)—信用證欺詐例外原則。1）什么

2、是信用證欺詐—信用證欺詐的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)問題。2）信用證欺詐例外的例外問題。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,信用證欺詐例外原則是指在肯定信用證獨(dú)立性原則的前提下，允許銀行在存在信用證欺詐的情況下，不予兌付，法院亦可以頒發(fā)止付令對銀行的兌付行為予以禁止。三個理論基礎(chǔ)欺詐使一切變得無效（fraus omnia corrumpit)誠實信用原則 公共秩序保留原則,Copyright@2005 Che

3、ng Jun,LC FRAUD,信用證欺詐認(rèn)定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)1、美國的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)A) Pre-UCC PositionB) Prior UCC Article 5 PositionC) Revised UCC Article 5 Position,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,A) Pre-UCC PositionThe Sztejn Case(1941年里程碑式的判例：Sztejn v. J. He

4、nry Schroder Banking Corp(31 N.Y.S.2d 631) )Intentional fraud/egregious fraud/a more flexible equitable standard of fraud,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,B) Prior UCC Article 5 Position4-114（2）條 : “除非另有協(xié)議，當(dāng)各項單據(jù)表面符合信用

5、證條款，但其中某項必要單據(jù)事實上不符合所有權(quán)憑證之流通或轉(zhuǎn)讓中的擔(dān)保（warranty made on negotiation or transfer of a document of title）（第7-507條）或保付證券之流通或轉(zhuǎn)讓中的擔(dān)保（第8-306條）時，或某項必要單據(jù)屬于偽造、帶有欺詐或在交易中存在欺詐時，    a.開證人必須兌付匯票或支付命令，如果提出兌付要求的是議付銀行；或是取得信用證

6、項下之匯票或支付命令的其他執(zhí)票人，只要該執(zhí)票人取得匯票或支付命令的方式使其可以成為正當(dāng)執(zhí)票人（第3-302條），或在適當(dāng)情況下，使其可以成為所有權(quán)憑證正常流通后的受讓人（第7-502條）或保付證券的善意購買人（第8-302條）；以及    b.在所有其他情況下，相對于客戶來說，開證人只要善意作為，就可以兌付匯票或支付命令，即使客戶已經(jīng)發(fā)出通知，說明單據(jù)上存在欺詐、偽造或其他表面上不能顯見的缺陷；但具有適當(dāng)

7、管轄權(quán)的法院可以禁止此種兌付?！?,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,判例中出現(xiàn)了大量不同的認(rèn)定信用證欺詐的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 1)Intentional Fraud NMC Enterprises Inc v. Columbia Broadcasting System Inc.((1974)14 UCC Rep Serv 1427) 2) Letter of credit fraud

8、 Emery-Waterhouse Co v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank((1985)757 F 2d 399) 3) Flexible Standard United Bank Ltd v. Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp((1976)392 NYS 2d 265),Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRA

9、UD,4) Constructive fraudDynamics Corp of America v. Citizens & Southern National Bank((1973)356 F Supp 991) 5)Egregious Fraud: Gross fraudIntraworld Industries Inc v. Girard Trust Bank((1975)336 A 2d 316)The cour

10、t judged: “…the circumstances which will justify an injunction against honor must be narrowly limited to situations of fraud which the wrongdoing of the beneficiary has so vitiated the entire transaction that the legi

11、timated purposes of the independence of the issuer’s obligation would no longer be served…”,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,C) Revised UCC Art 5 Position Material fraud(5-109:a)如果一次交單在其表面上嚴(yán)格和信用證的條件和條款相符，但是其中所要求的一

12、個單據(jù)是偽造的或?qū)嵸|(zhì)上是欺詐的（forged or materially fraudulent），或者兌付該交付的單據(jù)將促成受益人對開證行和開證申請人的實質(zhì)上的欺詐（facilitate a material fraud） …一個憑善意行事的開證人，可以兌付也可不兌付交單…b)如果一個開證申請人提出，該信用證所要求交單的單據(jù)是偽造的或?qū)嵸|(zhì)上欺詐性的或兌付該單據(jù)將會實質(zhì)上促成受益人對開證人和開證申請人的欺詐，那么一個法律上有合格管轄權(quán)的法

13、院（competent court）可以臨時或永久性地禁止開證人兌付某一提示，或者針對受益人或其他人采取其他相類似的補(bǔ)救方法。）,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,OFFICAL COMMENTS：“The use of the word requires that the fraudulent aspect of a document be material to a purchaser of th

14、at document or that the fraudulent act be material to the participants in the underlying transaction.”一個通俗易懂的例子。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,對“material fraud”的把握： ★對于單據(jù)中的欺詐而言，“實質(zhì)性欺詐”達(dá)到令單據(jù)無效的嚴(yán)重程度，破壞了其作為信用證交易所特定要

15、求的本質(zhì)； ★對于基礎(chǔ)交易中的欺詐而言，受益人非根本性的違約一般不能被認(rèn)為構(gòu)成欺詐，只有受益人的行為嚴(yán)重違背包括基礎(chǔ)合同在內(nèi)的整個交易安排，導(dǎo)致對方的根本合同目的或主要目的已經(jīng)落空時，才構(gòu)成“實質(zhì)性欺詐”。 ★5-109及正式評論都沒有明確規(guī)定要舉證受益人的欺詐意圖。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,CASE STUDIES：Hyosung America, Inc. v. Sumagh T

16、extile Co. 信用證及基礎(chǔ)合同中要求受益人出運(yùn)“fabric with a 65% rayon/35% wool content”。受益人實際出運(yùn)“fabric with a 70% rayon/30% wool content”，但提交的單據(jù)中卻虛假地顯示與信用證相同的貨物且單據(jù)相符。Q：Applicant是否可以欺詐為由向法院申請支付該筆信用證下的付款？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAU

17、D,Under New York law, the essential elements of a common law fraud claim include:A material, false representation;Intent to defraud;Reasonable reliance on the representation;Causing damages to the plaintiff.,Copyrigh

18、t@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,The beneficiary admitted that it had known that the fibre content of the goods shipped did not match the description of the goods stated in the presented documents. The beneficiary also knew tha

19、t the issuing bank would be liable to pay under the L/C if documents that appear on their face to comply with L/C terms were presented.,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,The court therefore concluded that the beneficiary

20、 had intended to defraud the issuer and that a 5% discrepancy in fabric content was material to the underlying sales transaction.“ misrepresentation was material because the issuer would not have honored the credit had

21、the misrepresentation not been made. “,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Western Surety Co. v. Bank of Southern Oregon Bank of Southern Oregon 開立了兩份以Western Surety Co.為受益人的備用信用證，用來反擔(dān)保Western Surety Co.開出的兩份履約保函，該保函一份對應(yīng)于

22、Washington的工程，一份對應(yīng)于Oregon的工程。但備用證中并未明確是對應(yīng)于具體的工程。受益人在對應(yīng)于Washington的工程的保函項下遭到索賠，卻分別在兩份備用證下提交匯票索款，開證人對對應(yīng)于Oregon工程的備用證以受益人的實質(zhì)性欺詐為由拒絕付款。Q: 開證人的以實質(zhì)性欺詐為由的抗辯能成立嗎？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,COURT：“…First, there is no ev

23、idence of a representation by the beneficiary. Indeed, the only evidence of record is that the beneficiary merely presented the Bank with the drafts required by the letters. Further, assuming that Western's drafts ac

24、ted as some sort of representation, there is no evidence that it was false. The letters of credit are identical on their face, except for the number, date, expiration date and aggregate amount, and there is no indication

25、 anywhere on them that they were for specific construction projects.",Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,COURT：“to establish a claim for fraud, the Bank had to show that there was a genuine issue of material fact as

26、to the following elements: (1) a representation; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the speaker's knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) his intent that it should be acted on by the person and

27、 in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the hearer's ignorance of its falsity; (7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his right to rely thereon; and (9) his consequent and proximate injury.",Copyright@2005 Cheng

28、 Jun,LC FRAUD,結(jié)論雖然UCC5（1995）確立了“material fraud”的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但如何在具體案件中去把握則是取決于法官的自由裁量權(quán)。對什么是“實質(zhì)性欺詐”的判決仍有不同的判例產(chǎn)生。（Mid-America Tire, Inc. v. PTZ Trading Ltd. Import and Export Agents ）,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,2、英國的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)英國

29、因信用證欺詐而給予禁令救濟(jì)的第一宗判例出現(xiàn)在1977年（Edward Owen v. Barclays Bank)。英國一直對欺詐例外原則的適用有相當(dāng)嚴(yán)格的限制。“Material misrepresentation”,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,CASE STUDYUNITED CITY MERCHANTS (INVESTMENTS) LTD. v. ROYAL BANK OF CA

30、NADA 涉及倒簽提單。貨物實際于1976年12月16日裝船，但提單顯示的裝運(yùn)日期為12月15日(L/C要求的最遲裝船日）。而該倒簽行為是航運(yùn)代理人瞞著受益人作出的，受益人并不知曉。Q:是否可以以欺詐為由拒絕付款?,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,一審法院:如果是賣方個人的欺詐行為或不道德行為去提交這樣的倒簽單據(jù)，銀行應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)“違反道德之對價不生訴權(quán)”的原則有權(quán)拒絕付款，但該案中的欺詐行為不在賣方

31、，其在提交單據(jù)時也不知悉，因而賣方有權(quán)得到信用證下的償付。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,上訴法院推翻了一審判決 :申請人給予銀行的是對真實單據(jù)付款的授權(quán)，因而銀行對偽造單據(jù)拒絕付款是再正當(dāng)不過的了，第三方欺詐并不能成為受益人對欺詐例外原則適用的抗辯。風(fēng)險分?jǐn)偟慕嵌?銀行擔(dān)保權(quán)益角度,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,貴族院又推翻了上訴法院的判決，維持一審法院

32、的判決 :仍然強(qiáng)調(diào)由于是第三方欺詐，受益人并未參與，也不知悉該欺詐，不應(yīng)對受益人適用欺詐例外原則。另外還認(rèn)為，該帶有虛假裝船日期的提單并未完全失去法律效力，畢竟貨物已經(jīng)裝運(yùn)，提單持有人仍可以用以提貨。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,學(xué)術(shù)界對該案的評論更多的是批評：《Export Trade》by C.M. Schmitthoff:“The decision of the Court of App

33、eal represented sound commercial sense.”《Benjamin’s Sale of Goods》： “It is disturbing that whilst a document stating the true loading date could have been rejected by the bank in the light of the doctrine of strict comp

34、liance, a document in which the loading date was fraudulently misrepresented by its maker constituted a valid tender in the beneficiary’s hands.”《Bank Credits And Acceptances》by H. Harfield: Although it is not explicitl

35、y stated in every letter of credit that the documents should be genuine, it is logically and generally recognized that there is an implied warranty by the beneficiary that documents tendered are genuine.,Copyright@2005 C

36、heng Jun,LC FRAUD,Montrod Ltd. V. Grundkotter Fleischvertrieds-Gmbh(2001)該案中賣方為信用證的受益人，而買方委托另一家公司作為申請人開立了信用證。為了能將信用證下的付款權(quán)控制在自己手中，以便在收到買方的貨款后再在信用證下付款，開證申請人在信用證中要求受益人提交由其出具并簽署的檢驗證。買方讓賣方信以為真地認(rèn)為買方完全能夠代表信用證申請人，包括申請人的簽字，并特此給賣

37、方寄去了申請人的公司章以示證明，并授權(quán)賣方的一名員工為申請人的有權(quán)簽字人。于是受益人就讓該員工簽發(fā)檢驗證，并妥當(dāng)?shù)靥峤涣伺c信用證表面相符的單據(jù)。當(dāng)申請人發(fā)現(xiàn)檢驗證不是其出具并簽署時，馬上要求開證行拒絕付款。而此時買方已提了貨，逃之夭夭。 Q:開證行是否應(yīng)該在知悉該檢驗證無效時而拒絕付 款？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Trial Court:it was satisfied that t

38、he beneficiary did not know that the buyer had no authority from the applicant to authorize the signature of the inspection certificates on the applicant's behalf at the time of presentation of the documents. Therefo

39、re, the court concluded that the beneficiary had "not acted dishonestly" and that no fraud had been committed. it found no support for the submission that "there exists in parallel with the fraud exceptio

40、n a second exception covering documents which are nullities to the knowledge of the bank at the time of payment through the beneficiary is innocent of any deception”,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Court of Appeal: Be

41、neficiary's presentation of documents that its employees signed for the Applicant in the honest belief that the buyer rightfully authorized them to do so did not fall within the "fraud" exception, and Engli

42、sh law did not recognize a separate "nullity" exception for documents honestly created and presented.,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,3、聯(lián)合國獨(dú)立擔(dān)保和備用信用證公約（UNCITRAL CONVENTION）的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)Article 19. Exception to payment

43、 obligation 1) If it is manifest and clear that: (a) Any document is not genuine or has been falsified; (b) No payment is due on the basis asserted in the demand and the supporting documents; or (c) Judgin

44、g by the type and purpose of the undertaking, the demand has no conceivable basis, the guarantor/issuer, acting in good faith, has a right, as against the beneficiary, to withhold payment.,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC

45、 FRAUD,(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of this article, the following are types of situations in which a demand has no conceivable basis: (a) The contingency or risk against which the undertak

46、ing was designed to secure the beneficiary has undoubtedly not materialized; (b) The underlying obligation of the principal/applicant has been declared invalid by a court or arbitral tribunal, unless the undertakin

47、g indicates that such contingency falls within the risk to be covered by the undertaking; (c) The underlying obligation has undoubtedly been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the beneficiary; (d) Fulfilment of

48、 the underlying obligation has clearly been prevented by wilful misconduct of the beneficiary; (e) In the case of a demand under a counter-guarantee, the beneficiary of the counter-guarantee has made payment in bad

49、 faith as guarantor/issuer of the undertaking to which the counter-guarantee relates.,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,我國的《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理信用證糾紛案件若干問題的規(guī)定》第八條　凡有下列情形之一的，應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定存在信用證欺詐：　　（一）受益人偽造單據(jù)或者提交記載內(nèi)容虛假的單據(jù)；　?。ǘ┦芤嫒藧阂獠唤桓敦浳锘?/p>

50、者交付的貨物無價值；　　（三）受益人和開證申請人或者其他第三方串通提交假單據(jù)，而沒有真實的基礎(chǔ)交易；　?。ㄋ模┢渌M(jìn)行信用證欺詐的情形。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,幾點(diǎn)值得注意： 未強(qiáng)調(diào)欺詐的“實質(zhì)性” 但從（二）中也能夠體現(xiàn)出“實質(zhì)性欺詐”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn) 明確了信用證欺詐的形式 “提交記載內(nèi)容虛假的單據(jù)” —標(biāo)準(zhǔn)太低？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,信

51、用證欺詐例外豁免原則（信用證欺詐例外的例外原則）信用證欺詐例外的豁免的理論基礎(chǔ)保護(hù)善意第三方風(fēng)險分?jǐn)偟慕嵌?在什么情況下，將適用信用證欺詐例外的豁免原則呢？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,必須符合四個條件：該第三方必須支付了對價 該第三方必須要有開證行的授權(quán)去兌付或議付，或以自己的名義提交單據(jù)索款。該第三方必須在上述開證行的授權(quán)范圍內(nèi)行事。該第三方的行為必須是善意的。,Copyrig

52、ht@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,受欺詐例外的豁免原則保護(hù)的第三方1）保兌行保兌行如果僅僅作為保兌行，那么在其履行完獨(dú)立于開證行的保兌責(zé)任，即兌付后將享有豁免權(quán)。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,2）被指定付款/議付/延期付款/承兌行 被指定行必須在開證行的授權(quán)范圍內(nèi)行事，同時必須善意地支付對價，這樣才能受到豁免權(quán)的保護(hù)。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,

53、LC FRAUD,開證行的授權(quán)對于被指定議付行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為：議付根據(jù)UCP修訂稿中的“HONOR”定義：對于被指定即期付款行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為：即期付款。對于被指定延期付款行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為：作出延期付款允諾并在到期日付款 。對于被指定承兌行而言，開證行的授權(quán)為：承兌并在到期日付款 。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,Banco Santander v. Banque Par

54、ibas 案情：在提單日后180天的延期付款信用證下保兌行憑一份款項讓渡書貼現(xiàn)了遠(yuǎn)期付款款項。貼現(xiàn)后一周， 開證行通知受益人提交了偽造的單據(jù)并存在確鑿的欺詐。在到期日，開證行以欺詐為由拒絕付款。 Q：保兌行能否享有欺詐例外豁免權(quán)？,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,一審法院、上訴法院：在延期付款信用證下，開證行對被指定行的指定是被指定銀行作出延期付款的允諾并在到期日付款，被指定銀行僅僅作出延期

55、付款的允諾只是執(zhí)行了開證行指令的一半，此時不能得到開證行的償付。開證行并未要求保兌行在到期日前貼現(xiàn)或支付任何對價，這只是保兌行自己的決定，盡管這樣做也沒有與指令相違背。如果保兌行沒有在到期日前貼現(xiàn)，當(dāng)?shù)弥嬖诖_鑿欺詐時，完全可以在到期日以欺詐例外的抗辯來拒絕付款。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,該判決遭到眾多信用證權(quán)威學(xué)者及評論家的質(zhì)疑 JAMES E. BYRNE 和 JAMES G. BAR

56、NES 美國法上判決結(jié)果會相反First Union National Bank v Arab African International Bank and Others [2002](USA)中，F(xiàn)UNB（倫敦）與Banco Santander 處于幾乎完全相同的狀態(tài)，因害怕受上述判例的影響，F(xiàn)UNB曾尋求美國法院的管轄，但未果。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,可參看下列判例：Banque

57、 Nationale de Paris v. Credit Agricole IndosuezBanque 2000-4 SLR 254 (27 June 2000) [Singapore]；Credit Agricole Indosuez v. Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal, 2001-2 SLR 1 [Singapore] Bank of Joliet v. Firstar B

58、ank Milwaukee, N.A.A. No. 96 C 1145, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15384 (N.D. Ill. 26 September 1997)；Industrial Bank of Korea v. BNP Paribas 2001 DA 68266 (Supreme Court, 2nd Div. 2003) [Korea] Federal Bank Ltd. v. VM Jog E

59、ngineering Ltd. [2002] 4 LRI 204 (Sup. Ct. of India) [India] United City v. Punjab Bank（1982）V2 Lloyd‘S Rep.4法院一致觀點(diǎn)：被指定議付行在不參與信用證欺詐或不知曉信用證欺詐的情況下，其對開證行的索償權(quán)不受信用證欺詐例外抗辯的影響。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,3） 正當(dāng)持票人（Hol

60、ders in Due Course）只有在信用證要求提交遠(yuǎn)期匯票，且在開證行作為該匯票的承兌人作出承兌時，該匯票的正當(dāng)持票人才能享受開證行欺詐例外的豁免權(quán)。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,注意兩點(diǎn)： 1）該匯票必須是在票據(jù)法上合格的流通票據(jù)。 美國判例Regent Corp USA v Azmat Bangladesh, Ltd. 2）匯票的受款人不能成為正當(dāng)持票人。 可參看Credit

61、 Agricole Indosuez v. Banque Nationale de Paris Court of Appeal, 2001-2 SLR 1 [Singapore] RE Jones Ltd. V. Waring and Gillow Ltd. (1926) AC 670.,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,LC FRAUD,4）轉(zhuǎn)讓證下的第二受益人在轉(zhuǎn)讓證下，如果由于第一受益人實施了欺詐，第二受益人

62、的索款權(quán)應(yīng)得到欺詐例外抗辯的豁免。Cromwell v. Commerce & Energy Bank((1984)450 So 2d 1, aff’d in part,rev’d in part(1985)464 So 2d),Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,KEY ISSUE TWO,NEGOTIATION議 付MISSION IMPOSSIBLE?,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun

63、,NEGOTIATION,議付的定義？？？UCP500POSITION PAPER NO. 2,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,什么是“undertaking an obligation to make payment”——承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任？加拿大信用證專家李道安的觀點(diǎn)GARY COLLYER的觀點(diǎn)馮敬德律師的觀點(diǎn)RABO BANK v BANK OF CHINA,Copyright@

64、2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,UCP中“對價”概念的法律基礎(chǔ)——英美法中的“對價”概念英美合同法中的對價概念英美票據(jù)法中的對價概念,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,不可撤銷的允諾符合英美法中的對價概念，這正是“承擔(dān)付款責(zé)任”的淵源。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,UCP600修訂組在對DRAFT 2的評論中提到：“ N

65、egotiation is a method of finance.” 議付的本質(zhì)特性——一種融資行為。 而所謂融資必然是提前支付——”ADVANCE TO PAY”，也只有提前支付才會給被指定議付行帶來風(fēng)險，形成損害（detriment),才構(gòu)成對價。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,DRAFT 2中的議付定義:在單據(jù)相符時，被指定行對受益人提交的匯票及/或單據(jù)的

66、付款或付款責(zé)任?；乇芰恕爸Ц秾r”的概念。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,DRAFT 3中的議付定義：議付被分為動詞形式（negotiate）和名詞形式（negotiation）來分別定義如下：“negotiate”是指被指定行與受益人間根據(jù)約定條款進(jìn)行議付的行為。如果該被指定行是保兌行，那么它對受益人的議付沒有追索權(quán)?！皀egotiation”是指議付信用證下，被指定行以預(yù)付款項或同

67、意預(yù)付款項給受益人的方式對匯票（該匯票的受票行不是被指定行）及/或單據(jù)的買入。僅僅審核單據(jù)不構(gòu)成議付。,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,引入了“PURCHASE”概念但“Purchase”和“giving of value ”相比是否更好呢？ 定義中將“Purchase” 的方式特定為“預(yù)付款”和“同意預(yù)付款” ——“Advancing funds” and “Agreeing to adv

68、ance funds”,Copyright@2005 Cheng Jun,NEGOTIATION,問題： 1、“AGREEING”的具體形式是什么？口頭的還是書面的？可撤消的還是不可撤消的？顯然簡單地用“AGREEING”來表達(dá)不能詮釋清楚究竟什么是另一種形式的議付。 2、“AGREEING TO ADVANCE FUNDS”后，被指定議付行是否已成為合格的議付行，從而享有欺詐例外抗辯的豁免權(quán)？,Copyright@2005 C