Article 12.(a) of UCP 600 states: “Unless the nominated bank is the confirming bank, an authorisation to honour or negotiate does not impose any obligation on the nominated bank to honour or negotiate, except where expressly agreed to by the nominated bank and communicated to the beneficiary.”

My questions are as follows;
(a) Is the “obligation” (as in “does not impose any obligation”) only to honour or to negotiate?
(b) Specifically under the provisions of this article, under what circumstances does a nominated bank ‘honour’, and under what circumstances does it ‘negotiate’?
(c) Under this article, would negotiations by a bank that has “expressly agreed to (negotiate) by the nominated bank and communicated to the beneficiary” be with recourse or without recourse to the beneficiary?

Replying to [Catalyst]:

Your questions are very interesting and difficult. I try do my best.
a) The answer is YES.

b)
+ A nominated bank will honor when it is issuing bank or confirming bank.
+ A nominated bank will negotiate when it is a confirming bank

c) In this circumstance, such negotiation will be without recourse.

Regards.

Replying to [Catalyst]:

(a) YES to which one?
(b) An issuing bank can NEVER be (or act as) a "nominated bank" or a "confirming bank". It can only "nominate"; a bank other than the issuing bank can be a "confirming bank", one cannot confirm one's own LC.
(c) Because of (b) above, the answer to this item cannot be correct either. Sorry!

Replying to [Catalyst]:
a) Both of them. Is it correct?

Replying to [Dankasolutions]
"Honour" and "Negotiation" do not carry the same meaning in UCP.