Global MegaBank (GMB)issued an irrevocable letter of credit on behalf of its customer Beer Importers of America,Inc.(BIA)for up to $150,000 covering shipments of "Belgian Trappist Ales" from "Beer of the World Distributor" (BWD).BWD subsequently presented its draft and commercial invoice with its name properly spelled as "Beers of the World Distributor." The submitted documents also referred to the shipment of "Belgian Abbey Ales" although the shipments themselves were of "Belgian Trappist Ales." GMB refused to accept these documents because of these discrepancies.GMB noted that use of the name "Trappist" is limited by Belgian law to 6 breweries operated by monastic orders in Belgium.By contrast,abbey ales are brewed by non-monastic entities under licenses to use the names of monasteries or religious icons in their titles.BWD claimed that GMB wrongfully dishonored the documents.BWD claimed the difference in names was excusable as a minor typographical error and that abbey and trappist ales are brewed in the same manner and thus so closely resemble one another as to excuse the discrepancy between the letter of credit and documents.
Who would prevail in litigation between GMB and BWD? Please explain your answer.Would the result be different if the court was to apply UCP 600 or the functional standard of compliance? Why or why not?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of Global MegaBank (GMB)issued an irrevocable letter of credit on behalf of its customer Beer Importers of America,Inc.(BIA)for up to $150,000 covering shipments of "Belgian Trappist Ales" from "Beer of the World Distributor" (BWD).BWD subsequently presented its draft and commercial invoice with its name properly spelled as "Beers of the World Distributor." The submitted documents also referred to the shipment of "Belgian Abbey Ales" although the shipments themselves were of "Belgian Trappist Ales." GMB refused to accept these documents because of these discrepancies.GMB noted that use of the name "Trappist" is limited by Belgian law to 6 breweries operated by monastic orders in Belgium.By contrast,abbey ales are brewed by non-monastic entities under licenses to use the names of monasteries or religious icons in their titles.BWD claimed that GMB wrongfully dishonored the documents.BWD claimed the difference in names was excusable as a minor typographical error and that abbey and trappist ales are brewed in the same manner and thus so closely resemble one another as to excuse the discrepancy between the letter of credit and documents.
Who would prevail in litigation between GMB and BWD? Please explain your answer.Would the result be different if the court was to apply UCP 600 or the functional standard of compliance? Why or why not?

Global MegaBank (GMB)issued an Irrevocable Letter of Credit on Behalf