Since a draft was included in the presentation at issue in ICC Opinion TA.948, it prompts important questions about examination not only under UCP but also under bills of exchange law.
Since a draft was included in the presentation at issue in ICC Opinion TA.948, it prompts important questions about examination not only under UCP but also under bills of exchange law.
On appeal, Court considered whether trial court: erred in holding that Subcontractor/Applicant was contractually precluded from relying on the unconscionability exception; correctly held that Contractor/Beneficiary’s demand was not fraudulent; and erred in declining to discharge the injunction.
The ICC has neither accepted the draft as a standard requirement, nor have they been successful in casting it out from LC practice. This article is an attempt to resolve the confusion and place bills of exchange laws and the UCP in their proper perspectives.