请高手帮忙翻译!急!Legal Basis for Letters of CreditAlthough document

请高手帮忙翻译!急!
Legal Basis for Letters of Credit
Although documentary credits are enforceable once communicated to the beneficiary, it is difficult to show any consideration given by the beneficiary to the banker prior to the tender of documents. In such transactions the undertaking by the beneficiary to deliver the goods to the applicant is not sufficient consideration for the bank’s promise because the contract of sale is made before the issuance of the credit, thus consideration in these circumstances is past. In addition, the performance of an existing duty under a contract cannot be a valid consideration for a new promise made by the bank: the delivery of the goods is consideration for enforcing the underlying contract of sale and cannot be used, as it were, a second time to establish the enforceability of the bank-beneficiary relation.
Legal writers have analysed every possible theory from every legal angle and failed to satisfactorily reconcile the bank’s undertaking with any contractual analysis. The theories include: the implied promise, assignment theory, the novation theory, reliance theory, agency theories, esstopel and trust theories, anticipatory theory, and the guarantee theory.[5] Davis, Treitel, Goode, Finkelstein and Ellinger have all accepted the view that documentary credits should be analysed outside the legal framework of contractual principles, which require the presence of consideration. Accordingly, whether the documentary credit is referred to as a promise, an undertaking, a chose in action, an engagement or a contract, it is acceptable in English jurisprudence to treat it as contractual in nature, despite the fact that it possesses distinctive features, which make it sui generis.
Even though a couple of countries and US states (see eg Article 5 of the Uniform Commercial Code) have tried to create statutes to establish the rights of the parties involved in letter of credit transactions, most parties subject themselves to the Uniform Customs and Practices (UCP) issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris. The ICC has no legislative authority, rather, representatives of various industry and trade groups from various countries get together to discuss how to revise the UCP and adapt them to new technologies. The UCP are quoted according to the publication number the ICC gives them. The UCP 600 are ICC publication No. 600 and will take effect July 1, 2007. The previous revision was called UCP 500 and became effective 1993. Since the UCP are not laws, parties have to include them into their arrangements as normal contractual provisions. It is interesting to see that in the area of international trade the parties do not rely on governmental regulations, but rather prefer the speed and ease of auto-regulation.

法律依据信用证虽然信用证可执行一旦传递给受益人, 很难拿出考虑由受益人向银行家之前的投标文件. 在这种交易下,由受益人将货物交付给申请人,是不足够的考虑 银行的承诺,因为销售合同之前发出的信贷, 因此,在考虑这些情况已经成为过去. 此外, 表现了现有税制下,合同不能是一个值得考虑的一个新的诺言 银行: 交货的,是考虑到执行基本的销售合同,并不能用来 譬如说,第二次建立的可执行性银行受益的关系. 法律作者分析了各种可能的理论,从每一个法律角度未能圆满调和银行的事业 任何合约上的分析. 理论包括:默示承诺,分配理论,更新理论,依赖理论,代理理论, esstopel和信任的理论, 预见性的理论和理论保证. [5]戴维斯treitel , goode , Finkelstein代表和南风都接受这种观点,信用证应分析以外的法律框架合同 原则,并要求在场的考虑. 因此,无论信用证是指作为一个许诺,承诺,在选择行动 约定或合同的,是可以接受英文理学把它当作合同性质, 尽管事实上,它具有鲜明的特点,使得它自成一体. 即使一,两个国家和美国国家(参见第5条的统一商法典)试图 创造章程确定各方的权利从事信用交易 大多数缔约方服从统一惯例( UCP )虽发出的国际商会( ICC ) 巴黎. 刑没有法律依据,而是 代表多个工商团体来自不同国家聚在一起,讨论如何修改UCP和 适应新的技术. UCP的是引据公布的数字算给他们. UCP的600人是国际商会出版物第600起2007年7月1日. 上次调整是所谓UCP500的,并成为1993年有效. 由于UCP的不是法律,各方都将它们纳入其安排正常的契约条款. 有意思的是看到,在国际贸易领域的各方,不靠政府规章, 而是选择了快捷和方便的自动调节.