Need an argumentative essay on Compare Article 5-109 (a) of the ( Amercian) Uniform Commercial Code with the approach under english, the full question is in. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism.

The very relevance of a letters of credit is quintessentially based on its autonomy from the transaction that it supports. Any bank that issues a letter of credit simply cannot refuse to honour it and extend the requisite payments, once it is presented with the apt and authentic documents. This also stands to be true in a scenario when the transaction being backed by a letter of credit does not actually take place. On the one side, the letters of credit extend to the sellers the assurance of a guaranteed payment, while on the other side they safeguard the interests of the buyers by necessitating the presentation of the right documents that to a large extent ensure performance. Such documents may be the like of insurance forms, transportation documents and quality related certificates. The Autonomy Principle The underlying dogma supporting the autonomy principles associated with letters of credit is that the transaction backed by a letter of credit stands to be autonomous of the sales deed formalized by the buyer and the beneficiary. To put it simply, the two essentially contractual arrangements mentioned above are regarded as being independent of each other. In other words, the utility of a letters of credit is pragmatically solemnized by the severance of services and documents. It is this principle that is the legal ground on the basis of which banks agree to such transactions. Fraud Exception As already mentioned, a letter of credit is the legal and financial instrument, which extends to the beneficiary the security of getting the payment due to one. Yet, this bolstering of security to the beneficiary in a way dilutes the security against risk or loss to the account party. Thus, in the letters of credit, the balance of risk is tilted more in favour of the seller. Though the autonomy principle practically assures the expected commercial results in business transactions, this principle stands to be defective and inequitable when the underlying transaction is vitiated by a fraud. Under such circumstances, the autonomy principle gets limited by the fraud exception. The US Approach In the United States, in Maurice O’Meara Co v National Park Bank, the court of law simply denied the possibility of invoking a fraud exception. The New York Court of Appeal ruled that that the primary concern of the bank should be pertaining to the veracity of the drafts and the accompanying documents, and not the associate transaction of goods. Also in New York Life Insurance Co v Hartford National Bank and Trust Co, the court ruled that the inquiry of a fraud by a bank needs to be limited to the establishment of the compliance of the documents with the letter of credit. Hence, the Uniform Commercial Code in the US allows the fraud exception only in case of a fraud in the complying documents. Besides as per Article 5-109(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code, even if a seller has committed a fraud in the complying documents, the bank is still required to honour a letter of credit in a situation where the claim for payment has been transferred to a third party. The American approach actually safeguards the interests of the innocent third parties, by allowing for a waver of the fraud exception. The English Approach In the United Kingdom, in Harbottle v National Westminster Bank, the court stated that a buyer to avail any injunctive dishonour must establish an evident and clearly discernable case of fraud.