نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ی حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

2 حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ی حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

چکیده

مشکلات عملی و حقوقی در اعتبار اسنادی، همچون هزینه، زمان و تراکم دعاوی ناشی از اسناد و عدم پرداخت، اتاق بازرگانی بین‌المللی را بر آن داشت تا پس از تجربه ناکام درزمینه «اعتبار اسنادی الکترونیک» با همکاری سازمان‌هایی چون سوییفت و ایزو، «تعهد پرداخت بانکی» (BPO) را عرضه کند. عمده‌ترین بخش BPO، ارائه اطلاعات از سوی فروشنده به بانک است که در قالب داده‌های الکترونیکی صورت می‌گیرد. هدف آن از یکسو به حداقل رساندن خطراتی است که در انطباق دستی، بانک و مشتریان را تهدید می‌کند و از سوی دیگر کاهش هزینه و زمان برای بررسی اطلاعات و پرداخت است. این مقاله به بررسی تطبیقی BPO و اعتبار اسنادی می‌پردازد با این هدف که مشخص کند آیا نظام BPO قادر خواهد بود، خلأهای اعتبار اسنادی را برطرف نموده و به‌عنوان الگوی مناسبی در نظر گرفته شود. هرچند، بهره‌وری BPO را گذر زمان و استمرار کاربری آن معین خواهد کرد؛ اما کنکاش در سیستم انطباق داده‌ها در مقایسه با کاستی‌های شیوه انطباق دستی، نشان می‌دهد این شیوه، هرچند حلال برخی مشکلات است؛ اما برای پاسخگویی به نیازهای جامعه تجاری، مسیری طولانی در پیش دارد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Limits of the Doctrine of Strict Compliance with Particular Emphasis on “Bank Payment Obligation” (BPO)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Moghaddam Abrishami 1
  • Khadijeh Jamalinia 2

1 Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabaiee University, Tehran,Iran

2 Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political science, Allameh Tabatabai University

چکیده [English]

In order to deal with existing problems in relation to documentary credit and electronic documentary credit, International of Chamber of Commerce (ICC), in cooperation with Swift and ISO, strived to adopt a new payment system, called: Bank Payment Obligation (BPO). The main part of the BPO relates to data presented electronically to the bank by the seller.  The role of the bank is to transfer the data to Trade Matching Application (TMA) in order to comply with the terms of BPO and to clear the payment. The purpose of the BPO is to minimize the risks associated with traditional documentary credit system, and to reduce the time and cost for examining data and proceeding with the payment. By conducting a comparative assessment, this article aims to illustrate problems pertaining to documentary credit problems by examining the limitations of the documentary credit system, and to discuss whether the BPO could address these problems.  Although it remains to be seen whether the BPO could be regarded as an appropriate system, it would seem that the BPO may not meet the needs of international trade.    

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Electronic Commerce
  • Doctrine of Strict Compliance
  • Data Transfer
  • Bank Payment Obligation
  • Documentary Credit
Bergami Roberto (2009), UCP 600 rules – changing letter of credit business for international traders, Int. J. Economics and Business Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, p.p. 191-203.
Byrne James E.,Taylor Dan (2002), ICC issues Guide to the eUCP, Paris.
Che Hashimi Rosmawani (2013), Principle of Strict Compliance in Letter of Credit (LC): Towards a Proper Standard of Compliance, LNS (A) Lix, p. p. 1-16.
Clark L. Derck (1970), An Issuing Bank's Duty Of Paymient Under An Irrevocable Letter Of Credit: Asociacion De Azucareros De Guatemala V. United States National Bank Of Oregon, Ariz. L. Rev, Vol 12, p. p. 835-845.
Dole Richard F. Jr (2005), Application Ad Hoc Waiver of Discrepancies in the Documents Presented Under Letters of Credit, SMU Law Review, Vol 58, p. p. 1453-1493.
Dubovec Marek (2006), The Problems and Possibilities for Using Electronic Bills of Lading as Collateral, Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L., Vol 26, p. p. 437-466.
Hennah David (2013), ICC Guide to the Uniform Rules for Bank Payment Obligations, ICC Publication, Burnham.
Holbrook Deborah (2010), Documentary Letters Of Credit: Banks' Obugation To Payee Ma Involve Duty Of Good Faith, Banking L. J, Vol 127, p. p. 857-862.
Jack Rymond, Malek Ali, Quest David (2009), Documentary Credits, Totel publising, London.
King Tak (2004), Leading Court Cases on Letters of Credit. ICC Publication 685.
Manganaro Nicholas P. (2011), About Face: The New Rules of Strict compliance Under the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 600), Int’l Trade & Bus. L. Rev, Vol 14. P. P. 273-290
Rosener James D, 2001. Recent Developments: Letter of Credit Transactions. J. Payment Sys. vol 1, p. p. 627-647.
Whitaker R. David (1991), Electronic Documentary Credits, 46 Bus. Law., Vol 46, p. p. 1781-1791
ICC Banking Commission (2016), BPO Frequently asked questions for Banks, [Online] Available at: http://www.iccwbo.org/Data/Documents/Banking/1205rev2-BPO-Frequently-asked-questions_Banks_27-April-2016/ accessed 20.3.2016.
http://www.essdocs.com/solutions/trade-finance/bank-payment-obligation-plus  accessed 27.11.2015.
 
پرونده ها
Bankers Trust Co v. State Bank of India [1991] 2 Lloyds Rep. 443 CA
Bank of New York & Trust Co. v. Atterbury Bros., 226 A.D. 117, 234 N.Y.S
Bank Melli Iran v. Barclays Bank DCO [1951] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 367
Bombay Industries, Inc., Respondent, v. Bank of New York [1996] 233 A.D.2d 146)
Co Operative Central etc v. Samitomu Bank Ltd. The Royan [1987] 1 Lloyds Rep. 345
Czarnikow-Rionda Sugar Trading Inc. V. Standard Bank London Ltd. And Others [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 187
Edward Owen Engineering Ltd v Barclays Bank International Ltd: CA [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 166
Equitable Trust Company Of New York V. Dawson Partners, Ltd. (1927) 27 Ll.L.Rep.49
Inflatable Toy Co v State Bank of. New South Wales (1994) 34 NSWLR 243, 251
JH Rayner and Company, LTD. v. Hambros Bank LTD, Court of Appeal, [1943] 1 K.B. 37
Montrod Ltd v Grundkotter Fleischvertriebs-GmbH & Ors [2001] CLC 466
Seaconsar Far East Limited v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran (1994) 1 Lloyds Rep. 1
Shanning International Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank PLC and Lloyds TSB Bank PLC v Rasheed bank SBG Holdings Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 177, [2000] 3 CMLR 450)
Standard Chartered Bank v. Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (2000) 1 Lloyds Rep
Sztejn v.  J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation 31 NYS 2d 631 [1941]
United City Merchants Ltd v. Royal Bank of Canada [1982] QB 208;[1983]1AC168