O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 11-5-103 (2019)

Scope

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This article applies to letters of credit and to certain rights and obligations arising out of transactions involving letters of credit.

(b) The statement of a rule in this article does not by itself require, imply, or negate application of the same or a different rule to a situation not provided for or to a person not specified in this article.

(c) With the exception of subsections (a), (b), and (d) of this Code section, paragraphs (9) and (10) of subsection (a) of Code Section 11-5-102, subsection (d) of Code Section 11-5-106, and subsection (d) of Code Section 11-5-114 and except to the extent prohibited in Code Section 11-1-302 and subsection (d) of Code Section 11-5-117, the effect of this article may be varied by agreement or by a provision stated or incorporated by reference in an undertaking. A term in an agreement or undertaking generally excusing liability or generally limiting remedies for failure to perform obligations is not sufficient to vary obligations prescribed by this article.

(d) Rights and obligations of an issuer to a beneficiary or a nominated person under a letter of credit are independent of the existence, performance, or nonperformance of a contract or arrangement out of which the letter of credit arises or which underlies it including contracts or arrangements between the issuer and the applicant and between the applicant and the beneficiary.

History

Code 1981, § 11-5-103, enacted by Ga. L. 2002, p. 995, § 1; Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 3B-16/SB 65.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 996, § 1-1/SB 65, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “(a) This Act shall be known and may be cited as the ‘Debtor-Creditor Uniform Law Modernization Act of 2015.’

“(b) To promote consistency among the states, it is the intent of the General Assembly to modernize certain existing uniform laws promulgated by the Uniform Law Commission affecting debtor and creditor rights, responsibilities, and relationships and other federally recognized laws affecting such rights, responsibilities, and relationships.”

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Article 5 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Court managed expansion of former Article 5 principles. - The former statute expressly contemplates courtmanaged expansion of principles contained in former Article 5. Barclays Bank v. Mercantile Nat’l Bank, 481 F.2d 1224, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8975 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 1139, 94 S. Ct. 888, 39 L. Ed. 2d 96, 1974 U.S. LEXIS 1523 (1974) (decided under former Code 1933 §§ 109A-5-102 and 109A-5103). Bank confirmation of nonbank credit. - The fact that the former statute provides a definition for a confirming bank

with regard to letters of credit issued by a bank does not preclude existence of bank confirmation of a nonbank credit. Barclays Bank D.C.O. v. Mercantile Nat’l Bank, 339 F. Supp. 457, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14691 (N.D. Ga. 1972), aff’d, 481 F.2d 1224, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8975 (5th Cir. 1973)(decided under former Code 1933 §§ 109A-5-102 and 109A-5-103). Failure to give timely notice of dishonor. - The issuing bank’s failure to give timely notice of dishonor was not excused by the fact that the beneficiary later admitted it could not have produced the documents in question, no matter how much time it was given. Pro-Fab, Inc. v. Vipa, Inc., 772 F.2d 847, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23448 (11th Cir. 1985) (decided under former Article 5).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 11 Am. Jur. 2d, Bills and Notes, § 337 et seq. 50 Am. Jur. 2d, Letters of Credit, and Credit Cards, §§ 19, 72, 73. U.L.A. Uniform Commercial Code (U.L.A.) § 5103. ALR. Variance between description of goods in letter of credit and documents accompanying draft as affecting duty to accept draft, 30 A.L.R. 353; 8 A.L.R.5th 463. Construction of provision for extension

in letter of credit or guaranty for purchase price of goods, 45 A.L.R. 1393. Construction and effect of UCC Art. 5, dealing with letters of credit, 35 A.L.R.3d 1404. Modification, revocation, or reformation of letter of credit - modern cases, 13 A.L.R.5th 465. Validity, construction, and application of the uniform customs and practice for documentary credits (UCP), 56 A.L.R.5th 565.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1987–2018 · leading case: Dibrell Bros. Int'l S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 38 F.3d 1571 (11th Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dibrell Bros. Int'l S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 38 F.3d 1571 (11th Cir. 1994). “” O.C.G.A. § 11-5-103(l)(f). Georgia law requires that the confirmation be in writing and signed by the confirming bank.”
Teleport Commc'ns Grp., Inc. v. Barclay Fin. Grp., Ltd., 176 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 1999). “See Ga. Code Ann. § 11-5-103 . The purpose of a letter of credit is to provide “a means of assuring payment cheaply by eliminating the need for the issuer to police the underlying contract.”
Jfs Props., Inc. v. Env't Prot. Div. (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 11-5-103 (d) provides: Rights and obligations of an issuer to a beneficiary or a nominated person under a letter of credit are independent of the existence, performance, or nonperformance of a contract or arrangement out of which the letter of credit arises or which…”
Benton v. Thacker, 355 S.E.2d 421 (Ga. 1987). · cites it 2× “1 See OCGA § 11-5-103 (1) (a). Thus, neither the fact that the letter of credit does not guarantee the payment of additional interest or attorney fees upon default, nor the fact that the letter is to be interpreted under New York law, creates a material departure from the offer…”
Hammock v. Bank South, 483 S.E.2d 668 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 11-5-103 (1) (g). Simply because the institutions involved negotiated the letter for the appellants does not disassociate appellants from their contractual obligation thereunder.”
— 11-5-103(l)(f) — 1 case
Dibrell Bros. Int'l S.A., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee, 38 F.3d 1571 (11th Cir. 1994). “” O.C.G.A. § 11-5-103(l)(f). Georgia law requires that the confirmation be in writing and signed by the confirming bank.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.