Global MegaBank (GMB) issued an irrevocable letter of credit on behalf of its
customer Beer Importers of America, Inc. (BIA) for up to $150,000 covering shipments
of “Belgian Trappist Ales” from “Beer of the World Distributor” (BWD). BWD
subsequently presented its draft and commercial invoice with its name properly spelled
as “Beers of the World Distributor.” The submitted documents also referred to the
shipment of “Belgian Abbey Ales” although the shipments themselves were of “Belgian
Trappist Ales.” GMB refused to accept these documents because of these discrepancies.
GMB noted that use of the name “Trappist” is limited by Belgian law to 6 breweries
operated by monastic orders in Belgium. By contrast, abbey ales are brewed by
non-monastic entities under licenses to use the names of monasteries or religious icons
in their titles. BWD claimed that GMB wrongfully dishonored the documents. BWD
claimed the difference in names was excusable as a minor typographical error and that
abbey and trappist ales are brewed in the same manner and thus so closely resemble one
another as to excuse the discrepancy between the letter of credit and documents.
Who would prevail in litigation between GMB and BWD? Please explain your answer.
Would the result be different if the court was to apply UCP 600 or the functional
standard of compliance? Why or why not?