Page 59 - 信用狀交易糾紛解析暨最新案例研討

49

【分析摘述】

前述第一項拒付理由說明如下：

專家小組一致之意見為，基本上以匯票上大小寫金額不符為理由拒絕單
據係屬合理 (註一)；惟本案相對人所認定之瑕疵 (即大寫金額錯誤) 為一明顯

之繕打錯誤 (註二)，以此拒絕單據並不合理，事實上，因為“four hundred

forty seventy”之金額並不存在，其意思應為“four hundred forty seven”，此則
與小寫金額及所提示之其他信用狀項下單據之金額一致。
“The experts are of the unanimous opinion that, while as a matter of

principle a difference in the draft between the amount in figures and the amount
in letters is a discrepancy that justifies the rejection of the document, in the case

at hand the discrepancy identified by the Respondent is an obvious typographical
error that does not justify the rejection of the documents. Indeed, because the

amount “four hundred forty seventy” does not exist, it should be considered as

meaning “four hundred forty seven”, which conforms to the amount in figures
and to the amount indicated on the remaining documents presented under the
28
documentary ”

註一：此案例另一可參考之意見即此段分析「專家小組一致之意見為，基本上以匯票

上大小寫金額不符為理由拒絕單據係屬合理」，因在信用狀作業經常爭論：匯
票是否為單據？匯票上之瑕疵可否主張拒付？依據本案之分析，答案非常明

確。
註二：本案例之專家小組係以 UCP 與 ISBP 為依據，作出匯票大寫金額錯誤，係屬明

顯繕打錯誤，不應視為瑕疵之決議。但倘依據我國票據法第 11 條第三段，票

28 摘錄自“Recent DOCDEX decisions by ICCexpert panels”: ICC DCI Vol.10 No.1, Jan-
Mar. 2004, No.226