SOUTHWEST UNIVERSITY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND LAW
TAKE-HOME
Final Examination--- 2004-2005学年第一学期
Cover Sheet
|
Course Title:
|
Case Study on International Trade Law
(Former Course Title: International Financial Law)
|
|
Course No. and Section:
|
|
|
Professor:
|
Wang Heng
|
|
Time Allowed:
|
24 Hours
|
|
Materials Allowed:
|
Open Book
|
Please indicate whether students are limited to a specific number of pages. Any other specific instructions can be indicated here.
Limit of 3000 words for entire exam. See additional instructions on first sheet of exam.
$$分页$$
Examination Rules. Please READ carefully.
1. There are three cases for you to analyze and some relevant questions to answer in this examination. The relative value of each question is stated in each case.
2. With the exceptions stated in these instructions, this is an open-book examination. Thus, you may use any materials, but there is no reason for you to consult anything other than the materials we used in class.
3. You may work on this examination for any consecutive 24-hour period between June 28 and June 29.
4. You may NOT discuss or have communication about the examination or your answers with any other person once you have begun the examination until the end of the exam period. This prohibition includes phone conversations, face-to-face conversations, e-mails, eye winks, head nodding, or any other form of communication. For instance, asking the question “Have you finished this exam yet?” or answering such a question would be considered a violation of this Rule. This prohibition covers communications with all persons, whether or not they are students at the Law School. I will treat violation of this Rule as cheating.
5. You need not retain or submit any notes that are not part of your final answer. You will, of course, only receive credit for what you submit at the end of the examination.
6. WORD LIMIT: THE ANSWERS TO YOUR EXAMINATION MAY NOT EXCEED A TOTAL OF 3000 WORDS. THIS IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WORDS FOR THE ENTIRE EXAM, NOT FOR EACH QUESTION. I WILL DEDUCT SUBSTANTIAL POINTS FROM YOUR ANSWER IF YOU EXCEED THE 3000 WORD LIMIT. You should be able to complete your exam with fewer words and should not feel compelled to reach the limit.
Good luck!
$$分页$$
I
案例分析题
(1/3 of the exam)
请阅读以下案例，并回答问题：
Hanil Bank v. PT. Bank Negara Indonesia
Facts
On July 27, 1995, PT. Kodeco Electronics Indonesia (Kodeco) applied to BNI to issue a letter of credit ( the L/C) for the benefit of “Sung Jun Electronics Co., Ltd.”(Sung Jun). On July 28, 1995, BNI issued the L/C, No.IM1MHT0272.95, in the amount of ＄170，955.00 but misspelled the name of beneficiary as “Sung Jun Electronics Co., Ltd.”. the beneficiary did not request amendment of the L/C to change the name of the beneficiary .on August 2, 1995 Sung Jin negotiated the L/C to Hanil. Hanil purchased the L/C and the documents submitted by Sung Jun thereunder from Sung Jun for ＄157,493.00, the face amount of the draft, less Hanil’s commission. On August 2,1995, Hanil submitted the documents, a draft, a commercial invoice, bill of lading, insurance policy, a packing list, and a fax advice, to BNI for payment. On August 16, 1995, BNI rejected the documents tendered by Hanil and refused to pay under the L/C. BNI alleges that it compared the documents with the L/C and identified four discrepancies, and based upon those discrepancies, refused the documents and demand for payment. The alleged discrepancies are as follows:
1.The Name of the Beneficiary: The L/C identifies the beneficiary as Sung Jin Electronics Co. Ltd.
2.The Packing List: BNI claims that the packing list did not show the contents of each carton as required by the L/C.
3.“Export Quality”：BNI claims that the packing list also fails to specify that the goods were of “export quality”.
4.The Bill of lading: BNI claims that Hanil supplied a “Freight Bill of Lading” instead of the required “Ocean Bill of Lading”.
BNI alleges that before it issued its notice of refusal on August 16, 1995, it contacted Kodeco to ask whether it would accept the discrepancies and approved the requested payment, but Kodeco to declined to do so. BNI further alleges that it continued to ask Kodeco to waive the discrepancies. BNI then returned the entire original package of documents back to Hanil on September 4, 1995.
Hanil contends that BNI decided to reject the documents presented by Hanil after consulting with, and on the instructions of, Kodeco. In support of this contention, Hanil points to a letter from BNI to Hanil, dated October 4, 1995, which stated that “we are acting at the request and on the instruction of the applicant, i.e., PT. Kodeco Electronics Indonesia. We will, anyhow make a final attempt to have the applicant reconsider their determination and to accept the discrepancies and give as the approval sic for payment of the documents.” BNI denies the contention that it acted on the instruction of Kodeco when BNI refused to pay because of the alleged discrepancies.
Plaintiff brought suit in New York State court on April 19, 1996, asserting claiming for breach of contract, breach of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 500, unjust enrichment, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeking ＄157,493 in damages, plus interest. Defendant then removed the case to this Court. Both parties now move for summary judgment.
In this case, both parties argues that summary judgment is appropriate because there is no genuine issue of material fact. Hanil argues that the documents it presented to BNI complied with the terms of the L/C. BNI, however, contends that each of the four discrepancies it identified justified rejection of Hanil’s presentation under the L/C and the refusal to pay and that the Complaint should therefore be dismissed.
Questions:
Briefly discuss the requirements of a reasonable document checker?
$$分页$$
II 图表题
Please draw the process of a typical collection
、
III 论述题
Please analyze the principles of the letter of credit law.
END OF EXAM
