ABSTRACT
International SA v Bangladesh Sugar and Food Industries Corporation [1998] 1 WLR 461-see Sepoong Engineering Construction Co Ltd v Formula One Management Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 602 at 604. See also Lac Du Bonnet v Lee River Estates Ltd [1999] 9 WWR 411. 28 Article 1. 29 ICC Publication 590. To a substantial extent ISP98 sets out principles recognised by the UCP. It is set out at appendix 2 and reference to it is made below. It is unclear how quickly banks will routinely issue standby credits subject to ISP98 or whether ISP98 will become accepted in the same way as has the UCP. 30 ISP98 Rule 1.01(b). ISP98 does not define a standby credit and may apply to a credit if expressly incorporated whatever label is given to the credit. Where ISP98 is incorporated, its rules supersede conflicting provisions in other rules of practice to which a standby credit is also made subject (for example, the UCP)—see rule 1.02(b). 31 See rule 10. 32 For a credit of this type, see Re Agra and Masterman’s Bank, ex parte Asiatic Banking Corporation (1867) L.R. 2 Ch. App. 391. Owing to changes in business practice the distinction between general and special credits is of little importance today.
