Opinion ID: 71326
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Document Presentment

Text: Appellants contend Citibank rightfully dishonored Wade's demand for payment under the second letter of credit because Wade did not submit conforming documents as required under the terms of the credit. The letter of credit provided that documents had to be 4 Banco also claims error on the part of the district court in refusing to find it excused from making payment on the letter of credit on the following grounds: (1) illegality of performance; (2) the act of state doctrine; and (3) principles of international comity. We affirm the district court's judgment on these bases pursuant to our Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-1. presented no later than 15 days after shipment, but within the validity of the credit. It is this provision which is the source of dispute. This Court has recognized and applied the strict compliance standard to requests for payment under commercial letters of credit: Under Florida law, letters of credit are subject to a rule of strict compliance. Documents presented for payment must precisely meet the requirements set forth in the credit.... If the documents do not on their face meet the requirements of the credit, the fact that a defect is a mere technicality does not matter. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. FDIC, 872 F.2d 971, 973 (11th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). Wade does not challenge the applicability of this standard,5 but disputes when the submitted documents had to be in strict compliance with the terms of the credit. Wade argues the documents did not have to be conforming before the presentment deadline, but 6 only before the expiry date of the credit. Specifically, Wade interprets the phrase no later than 15 days after shipment, but 5 Wade does argue, however, that Citibank waived its right to insist upon strict compliance based upon advice allegedly given by Citibank's employee to Wade's freight forwarder. Since Wade raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider it. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 983, 109 S.Ct. 534, 102 L.Ed.2d 566 (1988). 6 See First Nat'l Bank of Council Bluffs v. Rosebud Housing Auth., 291 N.W.2d 41, 46 (Iowa 1980) (Upon becoming aware the first documentation furnished was improper, Rosebud had a right to remedy the defect before the expiration of the credit); Bank of Cochin Ltd. v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., 612 F.Supp. 1533, 1542 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (The UCP also implicitly invites cure of any documentary deficiencies apparent before the letter of credit expiration by issuer notification to the beneficiary), aff'd, 808 F.2d 209 (2d Cir.1986). within the validity of the credit to mean it was required to initially submit documents no later than [July 22, 1992], but that between the presentment deadline and the expiry date of the credit there was a cure period during which it could remedy any deficiencies contained in the initial presentment. Since Wade initially submitted its documents within the 15-day presentment period and thereafter cured the discrepancies before the expiry date, it maintains it was entitled to receive payment.7 A rule such as that suggested by Wade would reduce the function of the document presentment deadline to a mere benchmark for the initial submission of documents, no matter how discrepant. It would permit beneficiaries to make only half-hearted presentments, forcing banks to waste time reviewing discrepant documents submitted in anticipation of the opportunity to cure defects before the real deadline, the expiry date. Enabling a beneficiary to enjoy an unrestricted right to cure deficiencies before the expiration of the credit would render the document presentment deadline virtually meaningless and effectively subvert the strict compliance standard. 7 No court has considered the question of when submitted documents must be in strict compliance with the terms of the credit in the event such terms provide for a document presentment deadline in advance of the expiry date. The authorities cited by Wade are factually distinguishable from this case. In First Nat'l, there was no stated document presentment deadline; documents simply had to be presented with the demand for payment under the letter of credit. 291 N.W.2d at 43. Similarly, in Bank of Cochin, the district court analyzed the letter of credit in terms of a shipment deadline and credit expiry date, without discussing a separate document presentment deadline. 612 F.Supp. at 1535. In this case, by contrast, the terms of the letter of credit clearly provided for a document presentment deadline in advance of the expiry date. Moreover, the terms and conditions of a letter of credit must be strictly adhered to.... Corporacion de Mercadeo Agricola v. Mellon Bank Int'l, 608 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir.1979), and the terms of the letter of credit in this case made no provision for a cure period entitling Wade to limitless attempts at remedying deficiencies until the expiry date. Accordingly, under the terms of the credit in this case, we conclude that conforming documents had to be submitted by the presentment deadline in order to satisfy the strict compliance standard followed in this Circuit. Any right to cure would have arisen only if the documents had been submitted promptly enough to permit bank examination, notification of discrepancies, and a second submission all before the presentment deadline. Since Wade failed to submit conforming documents by the presentment deadline, Citibank was justified in dishonoring Wade's demand for payment.