Illegality Distinct Exception

3760 words (15 pages) Essay in Free Law Essays

02/02/18 Free Law Essays Reference this

Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LawTeacher.

Should the law recognize illegality as distinct exception to the
autonomy principle of letters of credit? If so, in what circumstances should
the exception apply?


This discussion will consider whether illegality should
be a distinct exception to the autonomy principle of letters of credit. The
fraud exception already applies, which in many ways is a type of illegal
contract; however illegality in a contract is much vaster than this both in the
common law and in statute. Illegality basically means any contract that
breaches a statutory or common law position. In order to fully comprehend
illegality one must first explore the basic requirements of a contract because
the key principle in contract law is that if all three elements of agreement,
consideration and intention are present then the contract is complete. Once the
contract in a credit agreement is complete then the courts uphold that any
credit note passed is autonomous and the creditor cannot use the courts to be
voided. Once the basics have been explored then some basic principles
concerning the autonomy of letters of credit will be discussed. Then the
principle of good faith, along side illegality will be discussed. Then a case
study of the fraud exception will be discussed to illustrate how the courts in
the UK are reluctant to use the fraud exception and the vastness of illegality
would be used even less. This discussion will conclude by examining the previous
exploration and determine whether illegality should be a distinct exception and
even if it should would the courts use it effectively or ignore it as with the
fraud principle.

Basics of a Contract:

are usually upheld by courts as they represent the freedoms between individuals
concerning business dealings. Also the elements of a valid contract are so
tightly defined that to override them would make a mockery of an individual’s
right to deal. In order to determine if there is a valid contract there has to
be three elements which are; agreement; consideration; and intention. The first
element that will be dealt with is the notion of agreement between the two
parties. This element contains the ingredients of offer and acceptance. A valid
offer must be clearly communicated by writing, mouth or act in order to allow
the other person or group of persons to decline or accept. In
relation to sales of goods there is no requirement for the agreement and offer
to be in writing, as with the sale of property; however the offer has to be
certain in its terminology and must be clearly distinguishable from an
invitation to treat. In respect to certainty of terms both parties must make
their intentions clear, as the courts will not enforce a vague agreement
or an incomplete agreement; in addition it has to be
more than a wish to enter negotiations, which the individual does not want to
be bound.

The second element of a valid contract is consideration,
which is defined as an indication that the promisor intended to be bound, and
has the capacity to be bound. Consideration must be of some value,
where there is a right, interest, profit or benefit to one party and a
detriment to the other. There must be sufficient detriment to one party to be
valid consideration. Consideration must come
from the promisee, i.e. the person who has provided consideration can only
enforce the promise; however the consideration does not need to be adequate,
i.e. the consideration of the individual but does not need to be equal to the
consideration of the other party. The law leaves it to the two parties to
determine the amount of consideration, it may be very little;
however there is no consideration if the terms are vague;
and there is no consideration if it is not sufficient.
Insufficient consideration includes performing a duty imposed by law or a duty
owed to a contract of another’s. Therefore consideration is an important part
of a valid contract, however in relation to sales of goods it is usually
executed consideration – a price paid for a promise, i.e. a price paid for the
goods received.

Get help with your essay today, from our professional law essay writers!

Qualified writers in the subject of law are ready and waiting to help you with your studies.

Get help with your essay today

from our professional essay writers!

Visit to see how we can help you!

Intention is the final element of a valid contract, which is the
intention to be legally bound by the contract. In relation to the sales of
goods it is not a complex scenario because once the money is received and the
individual had the intention to sell the item, then the goods must be delivered
to the buyer. The only way that intention can be omitted if it is proved that
the party did not seek to be included to enter legal relations; however the
passing of money and retaining it equates to a legal contract, the only way not
to enter a contract is to reject the offer of the buyer and return the price of
the goods.

If all these elements are in the contract along with
good faith then the contract is complete and must be honored or a breach of
contract law may be present. Good faith is present within all types of
contracts whereby it refers to the honest intent to act without taking an
unfair advantage over the other person within the contract. Therefore the only
method to discharge a contract is through actions in breach, frustration, fraud
etc. In respect to business dealings between companies these principles are
stricter because it is assumed that the bargaining power is equal as they are
both knowledgeable in the workings of contracts. In English law the aim to
ensure that contracts between parties are upheld and the courts will always
find an avenue to ensure that a contract is upheld. In respect to the autonomy
of the letters of credit this rule is stricter because the contract is complete
and performance has occurred. The following case will illustrate how the courts
will infer certainty of contracts in English law even if the grounds are shaky.

Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co is a case that deals with an appeal dealing with the validity of
restitution; however this case’s argument is based upon an argument that there
was a total failure of consideration. However consideration the House of Lords
argued was defined from the actions of the shipbuilders, i.e. had they acted on
the contract and were funds expended? The contract was for design, construction
and delivery and as the shipbuilders had acted on this has consideration been
fulfilled? In this case the House of Lords argued yes because it is was not
just a contract of the mere sale of a ship, but the design and construction;
whereby once this design and construction has been initiated then there can be
no total failure of consideration. In the case of Stocznia Gdanska SA, when considering whether there has been a breach of the contract by the failure
of total consideration, the courts rather than specifically considering the
contract words is focuses on the intent and actions of the parties in
conjunction with the written contract. In the purposes of justice the court
considered the whole contract, its wording and the actions of each of the
parties; therefore resulting in a decision by the court that is balanced and ensuring
that one party is not penalised because the other party does not want to fulfil
its obligations. Whereby the party claiming that there is total failure of
consideration purports that there is no evidence of total consideration because
this party has not acted or has be put at a detriment in respect to the
contract. The court rather considered the actions of the other party, the
shipbuilders, and determined if there was any consideration on their part and
if there is then there cannot be a total failure of consideration. Therefore
this case illustrates the English courts adherence to contracts over the
possibility that the requirements are not available. If one takes this thinking
and applies it to the problem at hand where a contract is performed it is
highly unlikely the courts will overturn it because it will affect certainty of
contracts. Yet there are cases of injustices and it is necessary for the courts
to become involved and rescind a letter of credit, such as in the case of fraud
and illegality because these cases are going against equitable and statutory
principles. In order to fully understand this autonomy of letters of credit
will be explored in the next section.

Get help with your essay today, from our professional law essay writers!

Qualified writers in the subject of law are ready and waiting to help you with your studies.

Get help with your essay today

from our professional essay writers!

Visit to see how we can help you!

Autonomy of Letters of Credit:

Letters of Credit are basically agreements for one party to pay a
repayable to sum to another, once the letter of credit has been properly
completed then it is binding for the party to pay this sum of money, i.e.
extend credit to the other party. In other words, as with a contract to
exchange goods etc once it has been completed and has all valid elements the
court will uphold the validity of the contract and its performance; therefore
to have a letter of credit presupposes that a valid contract is in place, which
is at the heart of this discussion. There is one exception, other than the lack
of a valid contract, which is the presence of fraudulent information being
forwarded to the creditor. This means that if the information that the creditor
is given wrong and the person who is lending the money knows this then it is
fraud and will fulfill the fraud exception to stop the credit note being held
valid. UK law does not provide any specific statute to confirm this but is
enshrined within common-law principles. This exception is very similar to the
notion of utmost good faith in insurance law in principle the use of it is very
limited therefore limiting the working of justice, i.e. if there is a legal
principle that is rarely or never used makes it null and void. This may seem to
be counterproductive to the other approaches to fraudulent contracts; however
it seems to be indicative of the UK’s approach of upholding valid contracts
over the invoking justice. The problem with just relying on the fraud exception
is that it does not deal with other aspects of illegal contracts that contain
all three of the requisite requirements of a valid contract. Also how can a
letter of credit be justly upheld if it breaches a statutory or common law
principle? The answer is that it cannot and to uphold it makes a mockery of the
legal system and contract law because injustice is deemed to be okay it someone
contracts it to be so. The following section will consider the notion of good
faith, which this essay would argue should be another element of good faith
linking it with the principles of illegality.

Good Faith and Illegality:

Good faith is basic to a valid contract in most
jurisdictions; however in English law it has been greatly ignored, except in
insurance law where it has been put in statute but phrased as utmost good
faith. Therefore this discussion will briefly go over the principle of good
faith in insurance law and then illustrate how in other types of contracts it
is not used, but in the US it is a basic principle as the next section’s case
study will illustrate Then it will consider illegality and illustrate if the
principle of good faith was utilized then this would be an exception to the
principle of the autonomy of letters of credit. Utmost good faith refers
specifically to insurance law; whereby the insured must disclose all the
material facts otherwise the insured can vitiate the contract. The concept of
good faith is present within all types of contracts whereby it refers to the
honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over the other person within
the contract. In the area of insurance law it is essential for the insuree to
notify the insurer of all applicable information because this will effect if
the policy can be made and the amount of the policy. This is because the
insuree is in the position of power as they know all the information and their
duty is to disclose it. If one looks at the relevant notion of a valid
contract, if the elements of a valid contract are not present then the contract
is void. This principle relies on validity and if a contract is illegal should
it not also means that any thing that is received from the contract is
rescinded, i.e. a letter of credit. The first type of illegality that will be
considered are contracts that are immoral, i.e. if the contract is known to be
for an immoral purpose it is void. Contracts that are for
illegal purposes are also held to be void. Any contract
that is contrary to a statute is also void; however the
case of St John Shipping Corporation v Joseph Rank Ltd held that a court should not hold a contract is prohibited by statute unless
this intention is clear. The case of Taylor v Bhail held that any contract that is tainted by an illegal purpose is not
enforceable. Also in the interests of justice an innocent party can claim restitution.
Finally the case of Tinsley v Milligan holds that in property law illegality can only discharge an equitable interest
where this illegality must be relied upon to prove the claim. Therefore there
are many held instances of illegality in contracts and the question is why do
these principles apply distinctly to the autonomy of the letters of credit? The
answer seems to be confusing, i.e. relying of the fact that the contract has in
part been performed. This seems to be unfair and against theses principles,
even if an illegality exception was in a very narrow form such as equitable
interests in property would be better than none at all. Yet this seems to be
the approach of the UK courts as the following case study of the fraud
exception of the principle of the autonomy of the letters of credit will

Get help with your essay today, from our professional law essay writers!

Qualified writers in the subject of law are ready and waiting to help you with your studies.

Get help with your essay today

from our professional essay writers!

Visit to see how we can help you!

Case Study Fraud Exception – UK & US:

The given approach to fraud exception was defined by Lord Denning in United City Merchants v Royal Bank of Canada as that defined in the US Case Sztejn v Henry Schroder Banking Corp:

To this general statement of
principle [of independence], … there is one exception: that is, where the
seller, for the purpose of drawing on the credit, fraudulently presents to the
confirming bank documents that contain, expressly or by implication, material
representations of fact that to his knowledge are untrue. Although there does
not appear among English authorities any case in which this exception has been
applied, it is well established in the American cases of which the leading or
landmark is Sztejn v J Henry Schroder Banking Corp (1941) 31 N.Y.S. 2d 631.

Yet, as previously mentioned the courts take a non-interference
approach to letters of credit, in order to interfere the fraud must reach a
specified burden of proof and must actually involve beneficiary fraud. The
standard of proof is very high where there must be clear and unequivocal proof
that fraud has been committed. The case of RD Harbottle v Natwest defines this burden of proof as:

Except possibly in clear cases of fraud of which the banks
have notice, courts will leave the merchants to settle their disputes under the
contracts by litigation or arbitration as available to them or stipulated in
the contracts. … Otherwise, trust in international commerce could be irreparably

Therefore as with the exploration of the
UK’s approach to upholding the certainty of contracts the courts take a very
enlightened principle and hinder it with such a high burden of proof that it
basically makes it unusable. In addition the courts have added the actual
necessity for there to be beneficiary fraud, which means that the fraud has to
be committed by the beneficiary of the credit note, therefore if some fraud was
involved by at the hands of a third party the creditor has to bear the weight
of this fraud even if the fraud would have met the high standard of proof. This
has been upheld in the United
City Merchants Case
Therefore this seems to prove that the UK’s adherence to contract certainty far
outweighs the basic principles of justice, which leads one to believe that
notion of utmost good faith is an exception to the rule of upholding
the certainty of contract, especially in respect to contracts that are made by
companies. This was stresses in the judgment of the RD Harbottle Case when the decision of imposing a high burden of proof
was being justified in the nature of commercial certainty:

Otherwise, trust in international commerce could be
irreparably damaged.

The USA, on the other hand, champions the fraud
exception rule as to uphold fraudulent acts breaches the basic precepts of
justice of a valid contract. The USA has enshrined this rule in statute, as
well as has extended to types of fraud. The Sztejn Case as in the UK is
the key case dealing with fraud exception; however it is not limited by a high
burden of proof. It also is not limited to intentional and unequivocal fraud,
i.e. it includes constructive fraud and egregarious fraud, but most
interestingly the USA approach has a flexible standard that is indicative of the
USA’s adherence to justice in contracts whether on party is a company or not.
This flexible standard is confirmed in the case of United Bank Ltd v
Cambridge Sporting Goods Corp

It should be noted that the
drafters of section 5-114, in their attempt to codify the Sztejn case and in
utilizing the term fraud in the transaction, have eschewed a dogmatic
approach and adopted a flexible standard to be applied as the circumstances of
a particular situation mandate. It can be difficult to draw a precise line
between cases involving breach of warranty (or a difference of opinion as to
the quality of goods) and outright fraudulent practice on the part of the

Therefore this leads on to the conclusion that the approach of the
UK is too entrenched in the belief that certainty in commercial contracts
outweighs justice, which has created a lopsided and unfair system concerning
letters of credit; especially when the fraud exception is based upon principles
that promote justice as in the USA.

Conclusion – Illegality as a Distinct Exception:

In the interests of justice illegality should be a
distinct exception; however the court reasoning with respect to the fraud
exception does not seem to allow for this route of justice. It almost seems that
justice contrary to the basic precept of upholding contracts, yet this is not
true for other jurisdictions such as the USA. It almost seems that UK courts do
not want to be involved in dismantling valid contracts, yet as this argument
assumes how can there be a valid contract without good faith? The answer is
there cannot be, yet as the UK courts rely on laissez faire principles
when it comes to contract law, i.e. as little interference in valid contracts
as possible they seem to refuse to become involved unless there is statute such
as in respect to utmost good faith insurance law. Therefore in order for there
to be justice there needs to the introduction through statute to ensure that
there is an illegality exception and fraud exception to the principle of the
autonomy of the letters of credit; otherwise the law surrounding illegal and
fraudulent contracts is a mockery.


J G Barnes & J E Byrne, 2001, ‘Letters
of Credit: 2000 Cases’
, 56 Business LR 4

Gao and
Buckley, 2003, A Comparative Analysis of the
Standard of Fraud Required Under the Fraud Rule in Letter of Credit Law
, Oxford University Comparative Law Forum 3

and Morse, 1999, Company Law, Sweet & Maxwell

Farrar et
al, 1998, Farrar’s Company Law 4th Edition, Butterworths

Jones &
Sufrin, 2004, EC Competition Law, Oxford University Press

Keenan and
Bisacre, 1999, Company Law (with Scottish supplement), Prentice Hall

Macintosh, 1986, ‘Letters of Credit: Dishonour When a Required Document
Fails to Conform to the Section 7-507(b) Warranty’
, 6 J L & Commerce

Pillans and
Bourne, 1999, Scottish Company Law, Cavendish

Sealy, 2001,
Cases and Materials in Company Law, LexisNexis

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.

Current Offers