Question

请高手帮忙翻译！！！急急急！！

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 defences of the buyer arising out of the sale contract do not concern the bank and in no way affect its liability.[2]Article 3(a) UCP states this principle clearly. Article 4 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 agent, appear to be in order, then in general the bank is both entitled and obliged to pay without further qualifications.
The policies behind adopting the abstraction principle are purely commercial and reflect a party’s expectations: firstly, 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. Secondly, documents required under the credit could in certain circumstances be different from those required under the sale transaction; banks would then be placed in a dilemma in deciding which terms to follow if required to look behind the credit agreement. Thirdly, the fact that the basic function of the credit is to provide the seller with the certainty of receiving payment, as long as he performs his documentary duties, suggests that banks should honour their obligation notwithstanding allegations of misfeasance by the buyer.[3]Finally, courts have emphasised 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 contract between the seller and buyer, a bank were required to investigate said breach.
The “principle of strict compliance” also aims to make the bank’s duty of effecting payment against documents easy, efficient and quick. Hence, if the documents tendered under the credit deviate from the language of the credit the bank is entitled to withhold payment even if the deviation is purely terminological.[4]The general legal maxim de minimis non curat lex has no place in the field of documentary credits.

[edit] The price of LCs
The applicant pays the LC fee to the bank, and may in turn charge this on to the beneficiary. From the bank's point of view, the LC they have issued can be called upon at any time (subject to the relevant terms and conditions), and the bank then looks to reclaim this from the applicant.

Answer 1

法律原则是信用证的一个主要特点的信用证是付款义务 抽象的,独立于基本的销售合同或其他合同交易. 因此,银行的义务是确定的条款的功劳,而买卖合同是风马牛不相及. 辩护买方益销售合同不涉及银行,丝毫没有 影响其法律责任. [2]第3款( a ) UCP的国家里,这个原则明确. 第4 UCP的进一步表示,银行在处理证件,他们是不关心的货物(事实) . 因此,如果招标文件的受益人或其代理人,但似乎是在命令, 那么,在一般的银行都有权和有义务支付没有进一步的资格. 政策背后采用抽象原则,是纯粹的商业活动,并反映了党的期望:第一, 如果负责文件的有效性被抛到银行 他们将肩负着调查的基本事实,对每一项交易,从而较少倾向于发行 信用证作为交易,将涉及很大的风险和不便. 其次,文件规定的信用在某些情况下可能不同于根据买卖交易; 银行就会处于两难的决定,在何种条件下采用,如果需要寻找背后 信用协定. 第三, 事实上,其基本功能的信用,是向卖方提供的确定性收到付款后, 只要他履行其职责的纪录片, 显示银行应履行其义务,尽管指控滥用职权,由买方承担. [3]最后, 法院强调,买家总是有一种补救行动后,销售合同, 这将是一场灾难,为商业世界,如果 对每一种违反合同的买方和卖方,银行都必须向调查说,违规行为. "的原则,严格遵守" ,也旨在使银行的职责付款单据容易, 高效和快捷. 因此, 如果招标文件,在信贷偏离语言的信贷银行是否有权扣留 付款,即使出现偏差,是纯粹的术语. [4]一般法律格言微幅非根治法已没有地位 外地的信用证. [编辑]价格LCS的申请人支付信用证费用给银行, 并可能进而把这项费用于616.44美元. 从银行的角度来看, 信用证在他们发表的,可以要求在任何时间(但须受有关条款及条件) , 而银行则期待认领这个申请人.

Answer 2

给钱啊