求助！英译汉（信用证）

Question

Recent Cases
There are many case of fraud relating to documentary credits which provide a warning. An early case in England was Midland Bank v. Seymour. The credit was to cover a shipment of duck feathers. The `goods' actually shipped were goose feathers and rubbish, none of which was of any commercial worth. Seymour the importer sought to make the bank liable on two different grounds; that the details of some of the documents did not contain the full description and that the drafts, although negotiated in Hong Kong within the duration of the credit, did not reach London until after the expiry date. It was decided that there were inconsistencies between the relevant documents, that they did not all have to show all details; also that because the documents had been implicitly ratified after receipt by the buyers, the late arrival in London was not the flaw that it would otherwise have been.
Another leading case, which was decided in New York, is that of Sztejn v. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation. In one sense the decision represents an inroad into the principle that the banker is concerned with documents, not goods. The buyer, who was a buyer of bristles, instructed his banker to open an irrevocable credit against the usual documents. The seller shipped rubbish but the documents complied with the terms of the credit. When the buyer discovered the fraud he succeeded in obtaining an injunction preventing the banker from paying. This exception was reasonable. No legal system would permit a payment enabling the fraudster-the thief-to receive his ill-gotten gains.
Later cases, as we shall see, have concerned the rights of innocent third parties and, of more difficulty, the question of whether there is in fact fraud. In another case some twenty years ago, a master mariner arranged for a letter of credit to be opened in favor of a "dummy" beneficiary to cover a sale of steel rails exported to Italy. He then issued the appropriate bills of lading called for by the documentary credit, negotiated it, and skipped town without having shipped anything. The money was paid to the "dummy" beneficiary, the mariner himself. However, he was soon arrested and his ship sold to cover the loss to the bank.

Answer 1

有许多信用证违约的案例给人以警告，例如早期在英格兰Midland Bank v. Seymour发生的一个案例：信用证上所描述的是运输的货物为鸭毛，但实际运输的却是没有任何商业价值的鹅毛和垃圾，Seymour的进口商要求银行负责有两个依据：首先单据没有抱过货物细节性的描述，虽然在香港议付时在信用证的有效期之内，但是单据寄到伦敦时已经过期，这就决定单单不一致，而且单据也未显示货物的所有细节，而且卖方收到的所有单据全都不够清晰明确，如果不是因为这样，货物推迟到达伦敦也不会成为缺陷。
另一个例子，发生在纽约的Sztejn v. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation虽然信用证的总规则是只处理单据，不管货物看，但一个猪鬃的买家向银行申请开立了凭规定单据付款的不可撤销信用证，卖方装上船的是垃圾，但单证却相符，幸亏买方及时发现，并及时阻止了开证行的付款，这一做法是合理的，因为没有法制社会允许为那些滥竽充数的垃圾产品付款。
还有一些例子，就是关于实质性违约是否会使无辜第三方利益遭到损害，或使无辜第三方陷入更艰难的情况。一个船长以一个虚拟人作为受益人开立了一张信用证，让这个虚拟人出口一批钢轨到意大利，然后自己开立了跟单信用证所要求的提单，然后去银行议付了货款，但却什么都没运走，钱却给了这个虚拟的受益人--船长本人。但不久船长被逮捕，然后他的船被卖掉用来弥补银行的损失。

真长啊，这段文字涉及挺多国贸的知识，我不是学英语的是学国际贸易的，虽然看得懂上面写的，但用汉语说出来还有一些生硬，如果有问题可以联系我，我会尽量回答的

Answer 2

这不是信用证呀，骗我进来。

Answer 3

那里最近情况是和提供一警告的文件参与人名单关联的诈骗的很多情况。一个在英格兰的早情况是中部地区的 银行 v。西摩。信誉是要用盖住一船鸭羽毛。事实上运送货物的是鹅羽毛和没有一点儿是任何商业对的价值的 垃圾。西摩进口商寻求在二和不同渣滓上使银行变得负有责任的；那某些关于的文件的细节不确实含有完整描 绘和那的草稿不确实达到伦敦，虽然在信誉的持续时间以内，在香港和谈判，直到在满期日期以后。它被断定 那在向所有的细节展示他们不确实完全必须的和有关关于的文件之间有不一致；也那因为关于的文件已经被购 买者在的收据以后不言明地批准，迟的到达伦敦不是是它除此之外已经瑕疵。 另一在??是明确的例案是 Sztejn v 的那个。亨利施罗德银行业务有限公司。在一感觉中的决定代表一变为那银行家是与关于的文件,不货物有关的原则侵袭。是一刚毛的购买者的购买者指示他的银行家为打开一对着通常关于的文件的不可改变信誉。销售员运送垃圾但是关于的文件遵守信誉的术语。当购买者发现诈骗的时候，他为得到一阻止银行家值得的命令成功。这的例外是在上合乎情理。没有法律上系统将允许一付款启动 fraudster 收到他的不义之财的小偷。更迟情况已经与无辜第三方的和更多困难的权利,是否事实上有诈骗的问题有关，当我们将注意到时。在另一个情况中大约二十以前年，一位商船船长整理为一信用证被有利于一个“假的”受益人为打开用盖住一向意大利出口钢栏杆的销售。那时他发行适合于单子的为按照文件信誉,兑换它和跳过城镇不已经运送任何事情呼吁提单。钱他自己被向“假的”受益人,海员付。但是，他被不久逮捕和他的轮船卖出对银行补偿损失。

Answer 4

THAT
ARE
EXEMPTED
FROM
THE’SOLAS’
CONVENTION
CERTIFICATION
REQUIREMENT
AND
IS
NOT
REQUIRED
TO
HAVE
A
CERTIFICATE
OF
CONFORMITY
TO
THE
ISM
CODE
OR
THAT
HAVE
A
CURRENT
ISM
CODE
CERTIFICATE,IF
THE
CARRYING
VESSEL
IS
SUBJECT
TO’SOLAS’
如果载货船舶符合国际海上人命安全公约(SOLAS)之相关规定，则不必出具有关SOLAS的相关证明文件，并无需具备国际安全认证（ISM）代码，也无需出具有关ISM的证明文件。
这里是ISM
code，你的SAM
code
我不知道是什么，是不是你写错了？