Should a Trade Finance Co. (who is the applicant of LC) be a signatory to the Sales Contract?

4 replies [Last post]
BombayFlyer
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2015
Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Hello dear members,

I am new to the world of LC and the International Commerce and would thus appreciate any / all advice, specifically, to my following query:

My Buyer (from Africa) is planning to avail the services of a local Trade Finance Company so as to get the LC issued in favour of my company from one of the banks in US. The draft LC mentions the 'Applicant' to be the Trade Finance company and my company is rightfully the 'Beneficiary'.

Given the fact that this would imply that my LC shall be negotiated with the Trade Finance Company, is there any precaution that I should take before proceeding on this transaction. The reason for my concern is the fact that the Sale Purchase Contract is signed only between the Buyer and my Company, not the Trade Finance Company.

The Contract lists the Payment Terms as follows:
The payment shall be made by the means of an IRREVOCABLE, CONFIRMED, TRANSFERABLE, UNRESTRICTED AND A FULLY OPERATIVE LETTER OF CREDIT 100% PAYABLE AT SIGHT AGAINST DOCUMENTS VIA SWIFTCODE MT103 FROM PRIME MULTINATIONAL BANK.

Would appreciate advice on the above.

 

phill doran
Offline
Joined: 02/10/2009
devilish...

Hello Bombay Flyer
In all matters of trade – ‘the devil is in the detail’ and I can only offer you a broad answer which is ignorant of this detail: so, bear that in mind.

However close the credit and the sales agreement might appear, they are always two separate contracts. At law, if you like, the beneficiary is not the seller. The beneficiary has rights and responsibilities that can and do operate separately from the rights and responsibilities the seller has. The same is true of the issuing bank, the applicant and the buyer.

As there is no connection, we can start by saying that there is nothing wrong with the way you have set up you agreement. One party may be the buyer and an unrelated party may be the applicant, but, commercially we need to create a connection that the law does not allow: in the real world, both contracts relate to the same endeavour.
The way I would ask you to ‘see’ the connection between these two unconnected contracts is as follows;

The sales contract is your RIGHT to be paid.
The credit is the MECHANISM of payment.

Accordingly, if the credit were to fail on you, it would not mean that you have lost the right to be paid – only that you have lost the opportunity to be paid by means of the credit.
My first advice to you then is to make sure that the sales contract contains MORE THAN ONE payment mechanism.

If the credit fails, the sales contract must establish a default mechanism which does not present barriers. For example – the sales contract could state “Payment in full by irrevocable confirmed documentary credit (etc) or by telegraphic transfer on or before the 1st of December”. If the credit fails, we know the 1st of December will come about at some future point. At that moment, your mechanism of payment becomes the telegraphic transfer of funds. Of course, come the 1st of December, how you will get the buyer to cooperate is another challenge, but it will prevent people deliberately frustrating you by stretching out arguments around the credit, presentation, discrepancies and so on – which is always the risk if the sales contract only contemplates one payment mechanism. Credits are not only used to facilitate payment: credits are also used to frustrate payment.

When you have this in place, now turn your attention to making the credit work for you without needing this default.
In this regard – make sure ALL of the documents are within your control. Do not, for example, accept a credit calling for a transport document unless you pay the freight charges – that is, don’t use an L/C for FOB if the L/C calls for a bill of lading . If you do not pay the carrier, don’t become reliant on that carrier’s documentation.

Do not allow the credit to be drawn up calling for any document generated in the destination country – ‘shipment’ from origin should be the last event the credit requires.

Draw up the papers (particularly those issued by carriers) in such a manner that you will have the right to stop the cargo’s release should you need to – e.g. should the credit fail or you feel exposed (your bankers will guide you further in this.)
Speak with you bankers; with them, go over a standard application form. Look at the field (or ‘tag’) numbers on the application form and decide which of those fields require YOUR answer. Then relay your wording to theses fields to the applicant – don’t let the applicant alone decide what goes into the credit wording.

Get a draft copy of the MT700 first: again, check the wording, be sure of the timing and the documents, and correct any mistakes before they find their way into the finished MT700.

Get the credit confirmed by a bank of your choice.

All business is risk management. There is no ‘no-risk’ business opportunity. Even when you get all matters aligned, things can and do go wrong: just find the time ‘this side’ of the negotiation to do your homework and put yourself in a place where disappointment is less likely to arise.

There is so much more – ‘the devil is in the detail’ – and others will chip in their thoughts I am sure.
I wish you well with this

Cheers

phill

“...in the kingdom of the blind; what you see is what you get...”

BombayFlyer
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2015
I have got the draft LC and

I have got the draft LC and also tried to speak with my bank about this. They were least interested into the Contract. Also, the draft LC has 2 Notify parties: The Buyer and Trade Finance Company.

Now about subsequent process from here, I am getting conflicting reports:

1.Banks won’t accept LC if the Applicant is not a signatory of the Sales contract. (Source: Business Associate in the Local Market - Africa)

2.My Bank on the other hand says that the terms of LC are more important and the sales contract is not even a requirement from their point of view. All they are focused on is the LC issuing / corresponding bank. They would not even comment on the Contract. (Source: Trade Finance department of my bank)

Which of the above is the standard procedure?

 

I would want to insulate the transaction / consignment from the liability of the Buyer towards the Trade Finance Company. And hence have proactively added a clause of indemnity to the contract:

“In the event of the Buyer appointing a Trade Finance agency / company to facilitate the process of making payment to the Seller, the Buyer indemnifies the Seller and also the consignment against all forms of liabilities, dues, charges and penalties that maybe payable by the Buyer to the Trade Finance agency / company at any point of time.”

Is this good enough?

phill doran
Offline
Joined: 02/10/2009
a clause without claws

Hello again

The first concern of any sovereign state with regards to international trade is ‘exchange control’. For example: under what conditions may forex outflow for import procurement?

If the buyer is in a country where BY LAW a credit cannot be opened without the applicant having a fixed and firm contract of sale, then the finance/trading house will need to comply with that law. Bear in mind that “Africa” is not a country: it is a continent comprising of over 50 separate countries – and the range of laws across those sovereign states is equally diverse. It is however not uncommon that African states (especially sub-Saharan African states) impose such laws on import payments.

The fact that your bank is not interested in this aspect simply means that your bank is in a country where the export exchange control laws have no similar restriction – are you with me? If something is required by local law, then that requirement has to be met. Your bank, having no obligations under the sales contract, has no interest in the sales contract – that does NOT make the credit more important, it only makes the credit more important from their point of view. From your point of view, each contract is of equal importance: you have to make them ALL work.

If you then wish to change your sales contract so that the finance/trading house is your only principle i.e. you as seller and they as buyer, then that may be your best alternative. Allowing the trading house (or finance house) to JOIN the contract with the buyer rather than instead of the buyer, simply complicates your recourse should things go sour. It is not impossible for multiple buyers to enter into a single contract with multiple sellers – but the SIMPLE approach of one seller and one buyer is by far the most elegant contract.

The clause you have quoted may well give you ‘rights’ under the contract: you still need to contemplate what you would do with those rights should something go sour: the expression is “Words are cheap. Law is expensive”.

Again – others may have different approaches to this model.

Cheers
phill
“...in the kingdom of the blind; what you see is what you get...”

BombayFlyer
Offline
Joined: 11/13/2015
Thanks a lot for all the

Thanks a lot for all the info. I appreciate the promt advice.

Cheers!

//
//