有大佬能回答一下这两个问题吗，中英文都行？ 80
y:CaseIDuringJunetoAugustin2005,Xbankinaforeigncountrysentfoursetsofdocumentsforimpor...
y:
Case I
During June to August in 2005, X bank in a foreign country sent four sets of documents for import collection to Y bank in China, noting that the collection was subject to URC522 with a total amount of USD 3,212,000 in terms and conditions of D/A At 90 Days Sight. The drawer of draft was the exporter. Invoice and other documents were made out to the order of the importer, but the payer in collection instruction and in draft was indicated as the collecting bank.
After receiving the documents, the collecting bank did not pay special attention to the drawee of the draft, and presented original documents to the importer. The importer accepted the draft. The collecting bank informed the remitting bank through SWIFT immediately, “Documents are accepted to mature on XXX on which payment will be effected”.
Before documents are payable at maturity in succession, the importer claimed that the payment period should be extended for another 60 days according to the new payment agreement, and asked the collecting bank to make the request for extension to the remitting bank. The collecting bank informed the remitting bank at once, “The drawee requests to extend the bill to mature on XXX. PLS approach the drawer for approval. Upon receipt of your return message of agreement, We’ll give you a formal message of acceptance”. The remitting bank’s reply was “Payment can be extended to XXX against your good bank undertaking to effect payment on the new maturing date”.
Therefore, the collecting bank contacted the remitting bank confirming the new maturing date, “Documents are extended to mature on XXX , payment will be effected on the new maturing date”.
When the new maturing date approached, the importer asked for deferred payment again. The remitting bank refused it and required immediate payment. In January 2008, the importer claimed that the goods under the above four sets of documents had not arrived yet. After negotiation between both the buyer and the seller, agreement had been reached that full sets of documents should be sent back and the remaining problems would be resolved by negotiation. The collecting bank telecommunicated the remitting bank immediately, informing it that all documentation had been mailed back at the importer’s request, and claimed that this business was closed.
On February 24, 2007, the remitting bank sent back the four sets of documentation to the collecting bank claiming that it had discounted the exporter’s draft which was accepted by the collecting bank, and asked the latter to make payment at once.
The dispute was appealed to their head offices respectively; however, it remained unsettled for a long time.
Questions:
How did the seller obtain the drat amount successfully? Do you think is there any possibility that the seller was in collusion with the buyer?
Please analyze the misconduct of the collecting bank and the remitting bank in the case. 展开
Case I
During June to August in 2005, X bank in a foreign country sent four sets of documents for import collection to Y bank in China, noting that the collection was subject to URC522 with a total amount of USD 3,212,000 in terms and conditions of D/A At 90 Days Sight. The drawer of draft was the exporter. Invoice and other documents were made out to the order of the importer, but the payer in collection instruction and in draft was indicated as the collecting bank.
After receiving the documents, the collecting bank did not pay special attention to the drawee of the draft, and presented original documents to the importer. The importer accepted the draft. The collecting bank informed the remitting bank through SWIFT immediately, “Documents are accepted to mature on XXX on which payment will be effected”.
Before documents are payable at maturity in succession, the importer claimed that the payment period should be extended for another 60 days according to the new payment agreement, and asked the collecting bank to make the request for extension to the remitting bank. The collecting bank informed the remitting bank at once, “The drawee requests to extend the bill to mature on XXX. PLS approach the drawer for approval. Upon receipt of your return message of agreement, We’ll give you a formal message of acceptance”. The remitting bank’s reply was “Payment can be extended to XXX against your good bank undertaking to effect payment on the new maturing date”.
Therefore, the collecting bank contacted the remitting bank confirming the new maturing date, “Documents are extended to mature on XXX , payment will be effected on the new maturing date”.
When the new maturing date approached, the importer asked for deferred payment again. The remitting bank refused it and required immediate payment. In January 2008, the importer claimed that the goods under the above four sets of documents had not arrived yet. After negotiation between both the buyer and the seller, agreement had been reached that full sets of documents should be sent back and the remaining problems would be resolved by negotiation. The collecting bank telecommunicated the remitting bank immediately, informing it that all documentation had been mailed back at the importer’s request, and claimed that this business was closed.
On February 24, 2007, the remitting bank sent back the four sets of documentation to the collecting bank claiming that it had discounted the exporter’s draft which was accepted by the collecting bank, and asked the latter to make payment at once.
The dispute was appealed to their head offices respectively; however, it remained unsettled for a long time.
Questions:
How did the seller obtain the drat amount successfully? Do you think is there any possibility that the seller was in collusion with the buyer?
Please analyze the misconduct of the collecting bank and the remitting bank in the case. 展开
2个回答
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
