Legal principles governing documentary credits
One of the primary peculiarities of the documentary credit is that the payment obligation is abstract and independent from the underlying contract of sale or any other contract in the transaction. Thus the bank’s obligation is defined by the terms of the credit alone, and the sale contract is irrelevant. The defensive of the buyer arising out of the sale contract do not concern the bank and in no way affect its liability.[3] Article 4(a) UCP states this principle clearly. Article 5 the UCP further states that banks deal with documents only, they are not concerned with the goods (facts). Accordingly, if the documents tendered by the beneficiary, or his or her agent, appear to be in order, then in general the bank is obliged to pay without further qualifications.
Policies behind adopting the abstraction principle are purely commercial, and reflect a party’s expectations: first, if the responsibility for the validity of documents was thrown onto banks, they would be burdened with investigating the underlying facts of each transaction, and would thus be less inclined to issue documentary credits as the transaction would involve great risk and inconvenience. Second, documents required under the credit could in certain circumstances be different from those required under the sale transaction. This would place banks in a dilemma in deciding which terms to follow if required to look behind the credit agreement. Third, the fact that the basic function of the credit is to provide a seller with the certainty of payment for documentary duties suggests that banks should honor their obligation notwithstanding allegations of misfeasance by the buyer.[4] Finally, courts have emphasize that buyers always have a remedy for an action upon the contract of sale, and that it would be a calamity for the business world if, for every breach of