Remburser - Korrespondentbankens kontraktsrelation med köparen och säljaren

Sammanfattning: Letters of credit is an instrument of payment that is frequently used in international trade. Normally the buyer engage a bank which irrevocably promise to pay the seller when the seller (beneficiary) present a specific set of documents. The document’s purpose is to prove that the seller has fulfilled the obligation in the underlying contract of sale. The bank’s task is to investigate the documents that the seller presents and decide if they are in conformity with the conditions in the letters of credit, and in that case pay the seller. The bank normally uses a correspondent bank that helps the opening bank to revise the presented documents and pay the seller on behalf of the opening bank. Correspondent banks can also confirm the letters of credit and irrevocable promise to pay the seller. This essay deals with the correspondent banks responsibilities towards the seller and the buyer. In both Swedish and foreign case law the courts have concluded the there are a lack of privity of contract between the correspondent bank and the seller and the buyer. The seller and the buyer are, because of that, incapable of suing the correspondent bank if it acts carelessly. The opening banks are furthermore excluded from responsibility since the private rules, ICC Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP), that regulates almost all letters of credit, stipulates that the opening banks are not responsible for the acts of another bank. Therefore I ask if there is any reason why the seller or the buyer can not sue a careless correspondent bank and whether there should be a privity of contract established in the UCP between the correspondent bank and the seller and buyer. The conclusion that I reach is, that UCP should not establish a privity of contract between the parties mentioned above, but it should establish an article which purpose is to inform the buyer and the seller that they do not have a contractual relationship with the correspondent bank and are not able to sue the latter.