More DOCDEX Decisions



Two demand guarantees stated that matters not addressed in the guarantees would be governed by URDG 758. It was determined that, on this basis, both guarantees were entirely subject to URDG 758. A demand under the first guarantee did not contain the statement as required by URDG 758 sub-article 15 (a) and was, therefore, non-compliant. A demand under the second guarantee was also considered as non-compliant because it did not contain the ‘breach' statement as required by the guarantee itself. For both guarantees, the guarantor failed to meet the time requirements under URDG 758 article 24 and, as such, was precluded from rejecting the demands. 





Under a collection subject to URC 522, the remitting bank claimed alleged breaches by the presenting bank. The first related to an imposition of a duty of care for the presenting bank towards the goods; this was dismissed on the basis of URC 522 sub-article 10 (b). The other issues all related to alleged conflicts of interest and were determined as being outside the scope of URC 522.  





Back to recent articles