Florida Statute 675.108 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXIX
COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

Chapter 675
UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE: LETTERS OF CREDIT

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 675.108

675.108 Issuer’s rights and obligations.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided in s. 675.109, an issuer shall honor a presentation that, as determined by the standard practice referred to in subsection (5), appears on its face strictly to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit. Except as otherwise provided in s. 675.113 and unless otherwise agreed with the applicant, an issuer shall dishonor a presentation that does not appear so to comply.

(2) An issuer has a reasonable time after presentation, but not beyond the end of the seventh business day of the issuer after the day of its receipt of documents:

(a) To honor;

(b) If the letter of credit provides for honor to be completed more than 7 business days after presentation, to accept a draft or incur a deferred obligation; or

(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4), an issuer is precluded from asserting as a basis for dishonor any discrepancy if timely notice is not given, or any discrepancy not stated in the notice if timely notice is given.

(4) Failure to give the notice specified in subsection (2) or to mention fraud, forgery, or expiration in the notice does not preclude the issuer from asserting as a basis for dishonor fraud or forgery as described in s. 675.109(1) or expiration of the letter of credit before presentation.

(5) An issuer shall observe standard practice of financial institutions that regularly issue letters of credit. Determination of the issuer’s observance of the standard practice is a matter of interpretation for the court. The court shall offer the parties a reasonable opportunity to present evidence of the standard practice.

(6) An issuer is not responsible for:

(a) The performance or nonperformance of the underlying contract, arrangement, or transaction;

(b) An act or omission of others; or

(c) Observance or knowledge of the usage of a particular trade other than the standard practice referred to in subsection (5).

(7) If an undertaking constituting a letter of credit under s. 675.103(1)(j) contains nondocumentary conditions, an issuer shall disregard the nondocumentary conditions and treat such conditions as if unstated.

(8) An issuer that has dishonored a presentation shall return the documents or hold them at the disposal of, and send advice to that effect to, the presenter.

(9) An issuer that has honored a presentation as permitted or required by this chapter:

(a) Is entitled to be reimbursed by the applicant in immediately available funds not later than the date of its payment of funds.

(b) Takes the documents free of claims of the beneficiary or presenter.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in ss. 675.110 and 675.117, is precluded from restitution of money paid or other value given by mistake to the extent the mistake concerns discrepancies in the documents or tender which are apparent on the face of the presentation.

(e) Is discharged to the extent of its performance under the letter of credit unless the issuer honored a presentation in which a required signature of a beneficiary was forged.

History.—s. 1, ch. 65-254; s. 616, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 99-137.

Note.—s. 5-108, U.C.C.

F.S. 675.108 on Google Scholar

F.S. 675.108 on Casetext

Amendments to 675.108

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 675.108

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 675.108.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 675.108

Total Results: 16

Reza v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-04-08

Citation: 163 So. 3d 572, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5034

Snippet: (Fla.1992) (citing Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988)). In McNeil

Holland v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2002-03-20

Citation: 813 So. 2d 1007, 2002 WL 429364

Snippet: counsel present. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). Holland contends

JIM MACON BLDG. CONTRACTORS. INC. v. Lake County

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2000-06-02

Citation: 763 So. 2d 1223, 41 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 1210, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 6781, 2000 WL 707286

Snippet: Florida Statutes (1993), are now found in section 675.108(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). [9] This article

Sapp v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1997-03-13

Citation: 690 So. 2d 581, 1997 WL 109218

Snippet: further ruled in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), that the "Fifth

State v. Guthrie

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-12-29

Citation: 666 So. 2d 562, 1995 WL 763348

Snippet: Ed.2d 158 (1991); Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988); Edwards v

Sapp v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1995-09-22

Citation: 660 So. 2d 1146, 1995 WL 557547

Snippet: was unlawful under Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), and that evidence

Keys v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-09-21

Citation: 606 So. 2d 669, 1992 WL 230422

Snippet: Court's rulings in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), and McNeil

Craig v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-28

Citation: 599 So. 2d 170, 1992 WL 83910

Snippet: constitutionally permissible. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988); Edwards v

Gore v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-04-16

Citation: 599 So. 2d 978, 1992 WL 74898

Snippet: charges as well. See Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). [5] Gore

Durocher v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-02-13

Citation: 596 So. 2d 997, 1992 WL 24974

Snippet: counsel is present. Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). McNeil v.

Happ v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-01-23

Citation: 596 So. 2d 991, 1992 WL 10617

Snippet: Court's decisions in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), and Michigan

Traylor v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1992-01-16

Citation: 596 So. 2d 957, 1992 WL 4873

Snippet: his lawyer. See Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988). I would therefore

Walker v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1991-01-24

Citation: 573 So. 2d 415, 1991 WL 6000

Snippet: 2d 378 (1981) and Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) and in view

Wilson v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-12-28

Citation: 573 So. 2d 77, 1990 WL 212837

Snippet: 2d 378 (1981) and Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), his confessions

Trody v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1990-03-06

Citation: 559 So. 2d 641, 1990 WL 20680

Snippet: Ct. at 1411. In Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), the Supreme

Hatch v. Trabue

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1930-05-21

Citation: 128 So. 420, 99 Fla. 1169

Snippet: 334. In the case of Code v. Walker, 214 Ala. 675, 108 So. R. 594, it is held that a wife who joins her