Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    FEATI Bank V CA

    Uploaded by

    Perry Rubio
    1. Bernardo Villaluz agreed to sell logs to Axel Christiansen, who issued a purchase order. A bank in California then opened an irrevocable letter of credit in Villaluz's favor. 2. The letter of credit required a certification from Christiansen upon shipment, but he refused to provide it. Without this document, FEATI Bank refused to make payment to Villaluz. 3. The court ruled that FEATI Bank was not liable, as it was only obligated to examine documents presented, not look beyond them. A correspondent bank dealing with letters of credit relies solely on documents meeting the credit's terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    FEATI Bank V CA

    Uploaded by

    Perry Rubio
    2K views2 pages
    1. Bernardo Villaluz agreed to sell logs to Axel Christiansen, who issued a purchase order. A bank in California then opened an irrevocable letter of credit in Villaluz's favor. 2. The letter of credit required a certification from Christiansen upon shipment, but he refused to provide it. Without this document, FEATI Bank refused to make payment to Villaluz. 3. The court ruled that FEATI Bank was not liable, as it was only obligated to examine documents presented, not look beyond them. A correspondent bank dealing with letters of credit relies solely on documents meeting the credit's terms.

    Original Description:

    Letter of Credit

    Original Title

    FEATI Bank v CA.docx

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Bernardo Villaluz agreed to sell logs to Axel Christiansen, who issued a purchase order. A bank in California then opened an irrevocable letter of credit in Villaluz's favor. 2. The letter of credit required a certification from Christiansen upon shipment, but he refused to provide it. Without this document, FEATI Bank refused to make payment to Villaluz. 3. The court ruled that FEATI Bank was not liable, as it was only obligated to examine documents presented, not look beyond them. A correspondent bank dealing with letters of credit relies solely on documents meeting the credit's terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    FEATI Bank V CA

    Uploaded by

    Perry Rubio
    1. Bernardo Villaluz agreed to sell logs to Axel Christiansen, who issued a purchase order. A bank in California then opened an irrevocable letter of credit in Villaluz's favor. 2. The letter of credit required a certification from Christiansen upon shipment, but he refused to provide it. Without this document, FEATI Bank refused to make payment to Villaluz. 3. The court ruled that FEATI Bank was not liable, as it was only obligated to examine documents presented, not look beyond them. A correspondent bank dealing with letters of credit relies solely on documents meeting the credit's terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FEATI Bank & Trust Company v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 94209. 30 April 1991 Gutierrez, Jr., J.

    FACTS: Bernardo Villaluz (BV) agreed to sell to Axel Christiansen (AC), a ship and merchandise broker, 2,000 cubic meters of lauan logs. After inspecting the logs, AC issued a purchase order for the said logs. On the arrangements made and upon the instructions of the consignee, Hanmi Trade Development, Ltd. (HTDL), Santa Ana, California, the Security Pacific National Bank (SPNB), California issued an Irrevocable Letter of Credit (L/C) available at sight in favor of BV for the total purchase price of the logs. The L/C was mailed to FEATI Bank and Trust Company (FBTC) with instruction that the draft to be drawn is on SPNB and that it be accompanied by the following documents, among others: a Certification from AC stating that the logs have been approved prior to shipment in accordance with terms and conditions of corresponding purchase order. Consequently, the logs were thereafter loaded to the vessel chartered by AC. After the loading of the logs was completed, the Chief Mate of the vessel issued a mate receipt of the cargo which stated the same are in good condition. However, AC refused to issue the certification as required in the L/C despite several requests made by BV. Because of the absence of the certification by AC, FBTC refused to advance the payment on the L/C. It eventually lapsed without BV receiving any certification from AC. Since BVs demands for AC to execute the certification proved futile, he (BV) instituted an action for mandamus and specific performance against AC and FBTC before the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal. Unfortunately, while the case was pending, AC left the Philippines without informing the CFI and his counsel; hence, BV filed an amended complaint to make FBTC solidarily liable with AC. ISSUE: Whether or not FBTC, as correspondent bank, is to be held liable under the L/C despite non-compliance by the beneficiary, BV, with the terms thereof? HELD: No. It is a settled rule in commercial transactions involving L/Cs that the documents tendered must strictly conform to its terms. The tender of documents by the beneficiary (seller) must include all documents required by the L/C. A correspondent bank which departs from what has been stipulated under the L/C, as when it accepts a faulty tender, acts on its own risks and it may not thereafter be able to recover from the buyer or the issuing bank, as the case may be, the money thus paid to the beneficiary. Moreover, under the Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credit, the bank may only negotiate, accept or pay, if the documents tendered to it are on their face in accordance with the terms and conditions of the documentary credit. And since a correspondent bank principally deals only with documents, the absence of any document required in the documentary credit justifies the refusal by the correspondent bank to negotiate, accept or pay the beneficiary, as it

    is not its obligation to look beyond the documents. It merely has to rely on the completeness of the documents tendered by the beneficiary. An irrevocable credit refers to the duration of the L/C. What it simply means is that the issuing bank may not without the consent of the beneficiary (seller) and the applicant (buyer) revoke his undertaking under the letter. The issuing bank does not reserve the right to revoke the credit. On the other hand, a confirmed L/C pertains to the kind of obligation assumed by the correspondent bank. In this case, the correspondent bank gives an absolute assurance to the beneficiary that it will undertake the issuing bank's obligation as its own according to the terms and conditions of the credit. Hence, the mere fact that a L/C is irrevocable does not necessarily imply that the correspondent bank in accepting the instructions of the issuing bank has also confirmed the L/C.

    You might also like