论文部分内容阅读
对于信用证审判时的一致性问题,国际商会银行委员会对咨询意见应更谨慎地进行分析。各国家委员会也无需盲目迷信国际商会银行委员会,应根据自身的经验和相关国际惯例认真研究,做出准确的判罚,以便使信用证更好地服务于国际贸易。案情回放案例一:兴杰国际私人有限公司诉上海银行浦东分行信用证纠纷案该案涉及兴杰国际私人有限公司(CJP International Pte·Ltd.本案原告,下称原告)与上海长江国际贸易有限公司(下称“长江公司”)的货物买卖。1999年10月21日,原告与长江公司签订一份编号为“CJPI/048/99”的销售合同,约定原告向长江公司出售二甘醇
For the consistency of the credit trial, the ICC Banking Committee should be more careful analysis of the advice. Nor do national committees blindly believe that the ICC Banking Committee should carefully study and make accurate penalties in light of its own experience and relevant international practices in order to make the L / C better serve international trade. Case Replay Case 1: Xingjie International Pte Ltd v. Letter of Credit Dispute over Bank of Shanghai Pudong Branch This case involved CJP International Pte. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Plaintiff) and Shanghai Changjiang International Trade Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as “Yangtze River Company”) sale of goods. On October 21, 1999, the plaintiff and Yangtze River Company signed a sales contract numbered “CJPI / 048/99”, which stipulated that the plaintiff would sell the diethylene glycol