[2010] 1 LNS 1828 (HC)
This case inter alia dealt with documentary credit. The Defendants alleged that the Plaintiff was negligent in unilaterally changing the terms of the Letter of Credit from UCP 500 to URC 522. According to the Defendants, this is not permitted under Article 9 (d) (i) of UCP 500. This violation, according to the Defendants, was the result of the Plaintiff’s agent HSBC unilaterally converting the terms of the Letter of Credit from UCP 500 to URC 522, without the consent of the beneficiary. The Court held that based on the terms of the First Contract, this submission is devoid of merit. In any event, there is no evidence before the court of the Defendants having raised a complaint to this effect when the Defendant was notified of the rejection of the beneficiary’s documents for non-compliance based on ICC publication Number 522 or as subsequently revised. On the contrary, the Defendants proceeded to negotiate with the Plaintiff for the revision of the terms of the First Contract. These negotiations resulted in the execution of the Second Contract, the intention of the parties being for this contract to supersede the First Contract. Accordingly, even if this court is wrong as regards the alleged breach on the part of the Plaintiff’s in unilaterally converting the terms of the Letter of Credit from UCP 500 to USC 522, the Defendants are estopped precluded from relying on this breach. Plaintiff was represented by Datuk Ganesan.