Letter of Credit Forum

Article 11 UCP 600 is identical to Article 11 a and 11c  UCP 500. Article 11b UCP 500 had been moved to Article 9 d UCP 600 ("A bank utilizing the services of an advising bank or second advising bank to advise a credit must use the same bank to advise any amendment thereto.")

A teletransmitted advise of a credit or its amendment will be operative unless and only if the issuing bank issues the caveat "full details to follow". The only point to remember is that the transmission needs to be authenticated. In practice only properly coded transmissions can be considered as valid amendment or openings of letters of credit.

As mentioned above: If the message does not contain the caveat "full details to follow" the secondary bank will disregard any subsequent mail confirmation.

Article 11 b UCP 600 confirms the provision of Article 11c UCP 500: A pre-advise binds the issuing bank and obligates the issuing bank to issue the letter of credit according to the pre-advice.
Despite the good intentions of the drafters, the enforcability of this
provision in practice is doubtful. A pre-advice commonly only contains the basic data of the LC (amount, expiration dates, goods). Already for
this reason it is difficult to enforce a pre-advice since the issuing
bank is completely free in the creation of the conditions not mentioned in the  pre-advice (shipping date, requirements for other documents). The consequence is: a frame contract that only contains basic data is not enforceable due to its lack of determinability. A claim for breach of contract or damages for non-issuance cannot be enforced.