We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2017
1 Bank of America assumes the position of an innocent stakeholder and awaits this court’s direction on the letter of credit claim.
2 Overseas initiated suit in New York Supreme Court and the ease was removed to federal court on RAKTA’s petition.
3 RAKTA represented to tlie tribuunl that it was prepared to finance the project without AID’s assistance.
4 A Contrating State shall not be entitled to avail itself of the procent Convention against other Contracting States except to the extent that it is itself bound to apply the Convention.
Article XIV. Cf. Comment, supra, 47 Wash. L.Rey. 441 at 486-87:
[I]n a system based upon reciprocity any tendency to tako an overly narrow view of foreign arbitral awards will be balanced by a desire to obtain the widest acceptance of America’s awards among the courts of other signatory states, which also have the public policy loophole available to them.
5 Moreover, the facts here fail to demonstrate that considered government policy forbids completion of the contract itself by a private party.
6 …The court shall confirm the award unless it finds one of the grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement specified in the said Convention.
9 U.S.C. §207.
7 In view of the general rule requiring strict conformity with the terms of a letter of credit, however, Fenizelos.1, S.A. v. Chase Manhattin Bank. 425 F.2d 401, 464-65 (2d Cir. 1970); Banco Espanol dc Credito v. Stale Street Bank of Trust Co., 385 F.2d 230, 234 (1st Cir. 1967), cert, denied, 390 U.S. 101;; (1968) ; Marine Midland Grace Trust Company of New Tork v. Banco del Pais, S.A., 26] F. Supp. 884, 889 (S.D.X.Y. 1966) we do register doubts about about the force of RAKPA’s claim. For while the letter provides, in relevant part, that payment to RAKTA awaits presentation of “[a]u award issued by arbitrators… indicatiiig the amount of the penalty due,” the award itself was written in terms of “damages” rather than “penalties.” But we refrain from passing on this admittedly complex issue and limit our aflirmance to the district court’s confirmation of the foreign award.
