Although documentary credits are enforceable once communicated to the beneficiary, it is difficult to show any consideration given by the beneficiary to the banker prior to the tender of documents. In such transactions the undertaking by the beneficiary to deliver the goods to the applicant is not sufficient consideration for the bank’s promise because the contract of sale is made before the issuance of the credit, thus consideration in these circumstances is past. In addition, the performance of an existing duty under a contract cannot be a valid consideration for a new promise made by the bank: the delivery of the goods is consideration for enforcing the underlying contract of sale and cannot be used, as it were, a second time to establish the enforceability of the bank-beneficiary relation.

Legal writers have analyzed every possible theory from every legal angle and failed to satisfactorily reconcile the bank’s undertaking with any contractual analysis. The theories include: the implied promise, assignment theory, the novation theory, reliance theory, agency theories, estoppels and trust theories, anticipatory theory, and the guarantee theory. ^[4] Davis, Treitel, Goode, Finkelstein and Ellinger have all accepted the view that documentary credits should be analyzed outside the legal framework of contractual principles, which require the presence of consideration. Accordingly, whether the documentary credit is referred to as a promise, an undertaking, a chose in action, an engagement or a contract, it is acceptable in English jurisprudence to treat it as contractual in nature, despite the fact that it possesses distinctive features, which make it sui generis.

Even though a couple of countries and US states (see eg Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code) have tried to create statutes to establish the rights of the parties involved in letter of credit transactions, most parties subject themselves to the Uniform Customs and Practices (UCP) issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris. The ICC has no legislative authority, rather, representatives of various industry and trade groups from various countries get together to discuss how to revise the UCP and adapt them to new technologies. The UCP are quoted according to the publication number the ICC gives them. The UCP 600 are ICC publication No. 600 effective July 1, 2007. The previous revision was called UCP 500 and became effective 1993. Since the UCP are not laws, parties have to include them into their arrangements as normal contractual provisions. It is interesting to see that in the area of international trade the parties do not rely on governmental regulations, but rather prefer the speed and ease of auto-regulation