MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043415896

Standby Letters of Credit in International Trade

2012· book· en· W7043415896 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Output (Edinburgh Napier University) · 2012
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLetter of creditBeneficiaryUnconscionabilityConventionGood faithBad faithPresentation (obstetrics)CharterRatificationPayment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question of what constitutes ‘fraud in the transaction’ with respect to international letters of credit varies considerably among jurisdictions. In proving allegations of fraud, it is crucial for the practitioner to know the relevant jurisdiction’s case law, especially if wider defences such as inducement, unconscionable conduct or bad faith must be invoked. In this book, the author argues that, whereas ‘fraud in the documents’ is generally sufficient in cases involving commercial letters of credit, standby letters of credit demand a wider fraud exception. The central issue – how wide that fraud exception should be – is what this book explores in depth.This author compares and critically examines the application of the fraud exception in four major trade jurisdictions – the United States, England, Canada, and Australia. With an overall focus on how each jurisdiction’s fraud tests treat the autonomy of standby letters of credit, she builds her arguments on such relevant sources and concepts as the following: •when it can be shown that the beneficiary has ‘no bona fide belief’ in the validity of its claim •demand guarantees; •international initiatives (ICC Rules and the UN Convention on Independent Guarantee and Standby Letters of Credit); •the Sztejn Rule; •parameters of the ‘fraud in the transaction’ defence •‘materiality’ standard; •prerequisites for injunctive relief; •arguing ‘fraud in the formation of the contract’; •performance bond cases; •applying the ‘breach of good faith’ defence; •‘negative stipulation’ in the underlying contract; and •equitable versus statutory/broader notion of unconscionability. The presentation includes detailed summaries and analyses of leading cases in all four jurisdictions. Lawyers and corporate counsel responsible for arguing claims or defences in letter of credit transactions will welcome the way the author's research and insight define the range of options in each case they handle. Academics also will appreciate the systematic way the book frames a complex area of international trade law.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it