Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 440 / Act 174 of 1962
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.5106 (2026)

Credit; issuance; enforcement; revocation; expiration.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE


Act 174 of 1962


440.5106 Credit; issuance; enforcement; revocation; expiration.

Sec. 5106.

    (1) A letter of credit is issued and becomes enforceable according to its terms against the issuer when the issuer sends or otherwise transmits it to the person requested to advise or to the beneficiary. A letter of credit is revocable only if it so provides.

    (2) After a letter of credit is issued, rights and obligations of a beneficiary, applicant, confirmer, and issuer are not affected by an amendment or cancellation to which that person has not consented except to the extent the letter of credit provides that it is revocable or that the issuer may amend or cancel the letter of credit without that consent.

    (3) If there is no stated expiration date or other provision that determines its duration, a letter of credit expires 1 year after its stated date of issuance or, if none is stated, after the date on which it is issued.

    (4) A letter of credit that states that it is perpetual expires 5 years after its stated date of issuance, or if none is stated, after the date on which it is issued.

History: 1962, Act 174, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;-- Am. 1998, Act 488, Imd. Eff. Jan. 4, 1999

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: City Nat'l Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts., 309 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City Nat'l Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts., 309 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 6× “MCL 440.5106(2); MSA 19.5106(2) provides: "Unless otherwise agreed once an irrevocable credit is established as regards the customer it can be modified or revoked only with the consent of the customer and once it is established as regards the beneficiary it can be modified or…”
Erman v. Armco, Inc. (In Re Formed Tubes, Inc.), 46 B.R. 645 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.5106(2) (1979). 2 . The trustee does not challenge the validity of the letters of credit or the lien of the bank, which was granted in consideration of their issuance.”
East Lansing State Bank v. Red Cedar Constr. Co. (In Re Red Cedar Constr. Co.), 63 B.R. 228 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1986). · cites it 2× “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.5106(3) (1961) (Mich.”
Erman v. Armco, Inc. (In Re Formed Tubes, Inc.), 41 B.R. 819 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 440.5106(2). 2 . None of these cases address the question posed in this controversy.”
Infinity Acquisitions LLC v. Sardinia Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “See MCL 440.5106(1). It must also be authenticated with a signature, by the parties’ agreement, or the issuing institution’s standard practices.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.5106(1) — 1 case
Infinity Acquisitions LLC v. Sardinia Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “See MCL 440.5106(1). It must also be authenticated with a signature, by the parties’ agreement, or the issuing institution’s standard practices.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.5106(2) — 3 cases
City Nat'l Bank of Detroit v. Westland Towers Apts., 309 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 440.5106(2); MSA 19.5106(2) provides: "Unless otherwise agreed once an irrevocable credit is established as regards the customer it can be modified or revoked only with the consent of the customer and once it is established as regards the beneficiary it can be modified or…”
Erman v. Armco, Inc. (In Re Formed Tubes, Inc.), 46 B.R. 645 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1985). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.5106(2) (1979). 2 . The trustee does not challenge the validity of the letters of credit or the lien of the bank, which was granted in consideration of their issuance.”
Erman v. Armco, Inc. (In Re Formed Tubes, Inc.), 41 B.R. 819 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1984). “§ 440.5106(2). 2 . None of these cases address the question posed in this controversy.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.5106(3) — 1 case
East Lansing State Bank v. Red Cedar Constr. Co. (In Re Red Cedar Constr. Co.), 63 B.R. 228 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1986). “Mich.Comp.Laws § 440.5106(3) (1961) (Mich.”
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.