• A contract was made to sell steel rods to buyers in Jordan. They were to be delivered by two instalments and each one was to be paid for by a confirmed letter of credit. The first instalment was delivered and the bank paid. However, the buyers were unhappy with the quality of the goods and sought an injunction to prevent the bank paying on the second letter of credit.

• A contract was made to sell steel rods to buyers in Jordan. They were to be delivered by two instalments and each one was to be paid for by a confirmed letter of credit. The first instalment was delivered and the bank paid. However, the buyers were unhappy with the quality of the goods and sought an injunction to prevent the bank paying on the second letter of credit.

• Held: A confirmed letter of credit is a contract between the bank and the seller which imposes upon the bank an absolute duty to pay, irrespective of any dispute between the buyer and seller. The injunction was refused and the bank were ordered to pay the sellers.

• Held: A confirmed letter of credit is a contract between the bank and the seller which imposes upon the bank an absolute duty to pay, irrespective of any dispute between the buyer and seller. The injunction was refused and the bank were ordered to pay the sellers.

• Buyers of groundnuts instructed their bank to pay the sellers by documentary credit against a bills of lading covering ' Coromandel groundnuts'. The sellers presented bills of lading which referred to 'machine shelled groundnut kernals'which, according to the trade, were the same as Coromandel groundnuts. The bank refused to pay the sellers.

• Buyers of groundnuts instructed their bank to pay the sellers by documentary credit against a bills of lading covering ' Coromandel groundnuts'. The sellers presented bills of lading which referred to 'machine shelled groundnut kernals'which, according to the trade, were the same as Coromandel groundnuts. The bank refused to pay the sellers.

• Held: The bank were entitled to refuse payment. There was a discrepancy of the documents; it matters not that the two descriptions refer to the same produce, the bank were under no duty to know the custom of the trade.

• Held: The bank were entitled to refuse payment. There was a discrepancy of the documents; it matters not that the two descriptions refer to the same produce, the bank were under no duty to know the custom of the trade.

• A clerk was employed by Vinden to fill out cheques with the names of various customers, obtain the signatures of his employers and then post the cheques to the respective customers. Over a three year period the clerk made out 27 cheques to the order of various customers, obtained his employer's signatures, forged customers' indorsements and sold them to Hughes, who took in good faith. Hughes was paid on the cheques by Vinden's bank. Vinden sued Hughes for the return of the money. Hughes relied on s 7(3) of the Bills of Exchange Act which provided:"Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer.'

• A clerk was employed by Vinden to fill out cheques with the names of various customers, obtain the signatures of his employers and then post the cheques to the respective customers. Over a three year period the clerk made out 27 cheques to the order of various customers, obtained his employer's signatures, forged customers' indorsements and sold them to Hughes, who took in good faith. Hughes was paid on the cheques by Vinden's bank. Vinden sued Hughes for the return of the money. Hughes relied on s 7(3) of the Bills of Exchange Act which provided:"Where the payee is a fictitious or non-existing person the bill may be treated as payable to the bearer.'

• Held: When Vinden drew these cheques they did not use the names as a pretence; consequently, the payee were not 'fictitious' within the meaning of s7(3).

Vinden were entitled to recover the money. Besides, Vinden could recover the amounts of cheques because the forged indorsement was of no effect.

• Held: When Vinden drew these cheques they did not use the names as a pretence; consequently, the payee were not 'fictitious' within the meaning of s7(3).

Vinden were entitled to recover the money. Besides, Vinden could recover the amounts of cheques because the forged indorsement was of no effect.