Voest-Alpine Trading Co. v. Bank of China
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
167 F. Supp. 2d 940 (2000)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Bank of China (defendant) issued a letter of credit to finance Jiangyin Foreign Trade Corporation’s (JFTC) purchase of goods from Voest-Alpine Trading USA Corporation (Voest) (plaintiff). The letter stated that the letter’s terms would be subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP) 500. The letter incorrectly listed the beneficiary’s name as “Voest-Alpine USA Trading Corp.” and misspelled the destination port. Voest shipped the goods and presented to Bank of China the documents specified in the letter of credit. Bank of China notified Voest of several alleged discrepancies between the letter of credit and the presentation documents, including the inversion of “Trading” and “USA” in the beneficiary’s name; an additional misspelling of the destination port; and the addition of a “3” in the letter-of-credit number listed in one location in one of the documents. Bank of China also stated that it was contacting JFTC to see if JFTC wished to waive the discrepancies. Bank of China later returned the documents to Voest and refused to honor the letter of credit. Voest sued.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilmore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 782,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.