[69] 详见UCC9-101官方评论。
[70] UCC9-102.
[71] UCC9-306.
[72] UCC9-303.
[73] Buton v. McCullough, Letters of Credit, 1988, Matthew Bender. See 3-100.
[74] UCC7-501, 7-502, 9-309,
[75] See UCC 8-301, 8-302, 9-309.
[76] UCC 9-304.
[77] UCC9-305.
[78] 担保利益经登记后获得的完善期限长达5年，自登记之日起计算。在该期限结束以前，如果另外给登记机关一个报告，将获得另外5年完善期。见UCC9-403(3), 9-303(4).
[79] Scrutton, L.J., Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v Hannay [1918] 2 K. B. 623,659. 转引自H. C. Gutteridge and Maurice Megrah, The Law of Bankers’ Commercial Credits, 7th ed. Europa Publications Limited, 1984, p. 210. 另见Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 232。但是似乎有相似的判例，在近期的判例中，法院不承认银行在交单前就具有衡平法的质押权。法院的理由是不允许在国际贸易中轻易适用衡平法原则，除非双方有明确的信托约定。The Future Express [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79.详细的评论见Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 74. 另见杨良宜《提单及其付运单据》，第80页。中国海事大学出版社，2001年6月第一版。
[80] H. C. Gutteridge and Maurice Megrah, The Law of Bankers’ Commercial Credits, 7th ed. Europa Publications Limited, 1984, p. 210.
[81] H. C. Gutteridge and Maurice Megrah, The Law of Bankers’ Commercial Credits, 7th ed. Europa Publications Limited, 1984, p. 210. 另见Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 230. 开证行出卖货物前要通知出质人。
[82] Kum v. Wah Tak Bank Ltd. [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439, at 447.转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 74, footnote 80.
[83]最早的案例是Swell v. Burdick (1844) 10 App. Cas. 74. Per Lord Selbourne. 以及稍后的判例The “Odessa” (1916) 1 A.C. 145. 该判例说，该特殊的物权不是一般意义上的权利。以及后来提及该先例的Kum v, Wah Tat Bank Ltd [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439. see 447. Per Lord Devlin. 见杨良宜《提单及其付运单据》，第80页。中国海事大学出版社，2001年6月第一版。
[84] 著名的英国信用证学者Ellinger的文章中则干脆称掌握了受益人提交单据并作兑付之后的开证行为质押权人。See E.P. Ellinger, The Doctrine of Strict Compliance: Its Development and Current Construction, see 64, 2001 Anuual Survey of Letter of Credit Law & Practice, IILBP.
[85] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 43.
[86] Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 564.
[87] 英国法上有一系列的判例要求交付或推定交付质押物是质押成立的前提条件。Official Assignee of Madras v. Mercantile Bank of India Ltd. [1935] A.C. 53 at 58,59. Kum v. Wah Tak Bank Ltd. [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 439, at 442. The Future Express [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 79.
[88] Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 232, 233.
[89]“买方稍后即可在货物在途期间内自开状行获得必要之信用，并以所收受之单据为担保。至于在货物到达直至转卖转手后再行付款之期间内，亦易于获得其他有担保之贷款。” 《信用状论----兼论托收与保证》，（zahlung und zahlungssicherung im aussenhandel）, Johannes C. D. Zahn, 原著，陈冲，温耀源合译。第29页。
[90] 另见沈达明编著《法国、德国担保法》第227页，中国法制出版社。2000年8月北京第一版。作者在该节“质权的标的物”说：银行在信用证项下收到这样的提单等单证时，应该注意到债务人已丧失对这些财产的处分权，但银行借助于单据在货物金额的限度内保持担保。
[91] Frans P. de Rooy, Documentary Credits, p. 167.1984, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer/Netherlands.
[92]转引自沈达明编著《法国、德国担保法》第285页，中国法制出版社。2000年8月北京第一版。
[93] Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 565.
[94] 大约中国银行取法香港的实务，而农业银行取法台湾的银行。中国银行的实务准则见中银业[1998]165号文件。中国农业银行的业务规则请见1996年4月18日颁布同日实施的“关于印发农业银行出口业务操作规程的通知”。台湾的实务见余森林书《出、进口押汇》。大中国图书公司经销，修订第6版。
[95] Ladenberg & Co. v. Goodwin, Ferreira & Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) and Garnett [1912] 3 KB 275.
[96] Sale Continuation Ltd. v. Austin Taylor & Co. Ltd. [1968] 2 Q.B. 849; [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 403. 另见Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 50. 详细介绍和评论。
[97] 见UCP500第九条的规定。
[98] Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 235.
[99]中国
海商法年刊，1999，中国
海商法协会主办，大连海事大学出版社。王岚文章《关于提单质押问题的思考》。见第349页。另外更详细的讨论见Carol Proctor, the Legal Role of the Bill of Lading, Sea Bill and Multimodal Transport Document, Interlegal,1997. see 80.
[100]中国
海商法年刊，1999，中国
海商法协会主办，大连海事大学出版社。广州海事法院张贤伟法官的文章《再论跟单信用证条件下的提单担保物权性质》。第55页。
[101] Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 563.
[102] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 43.
[103] 另外一种情形是，开证行因不当兑付造成自己无法从开证申请人处获得偿付。见Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 230. 如果出现这一情形，则银行除了在手的单据之外，将没有任何担保物。
[104] North Western Bank Ltd. v. John Poynter, Son, & MacDonalds, [1895] A.C. 56. 转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 44 footnote 68.
[105] 同上注判例第56页，57页。
[106] 同上判例第68页。另见Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 563.
[107] North Western Bank Ltd. v. John Poynter, Son, & MacDonalds, [1895] A.C. 56. 转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 44 footnote 68, and 69.
[108] 例如判例Lloyd’s Bank v. Bank of America National Trust and Saving Association, [1938] 2 K.B. 147.
[109] Taylor v. Plumer (1895) 3 M. & S. 562. per Lord Ellenborough C.J. 该案判决，如果款项尚可识别，则银行可以主张该款项是货物的替代物。转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 45 footnote 72.
[110] Bank Belge pour l’Etranger v. Hambrouck [1921] 1 K.B. 321. per Scrutton L.J.
[111] 关于资金的可识别和混同，不同法官有不同的看法。例如在Bank Belge pour l’Etranger v. Hambrouck [1921] 1 K.B. 321案中，Scrutton L.J.认为，款项付入银行任何种类的账户即告不可识别而混同。见第330页。但是Banks L.J. 却认为，即使该可想付入任何银行账户仍是可识别为原告的财产，只要该款项任在账户上，并且未与其他资金混同。Atkin L.J. 在很早的一宗判决中却认为，即使该款项和其他资金混同仍可根据普通法跟踪而至，正如衡平法的追及制度， 见判例Re Hellett’s Estate (1880) 13 Ch. D. 696; [1874-80] All E.R. Rep. 793. 但是近期的判例显然在这一点上将普通法（common law）和衡平法原则（equitable rules）做了区别，见判例Agip (Africa) Ltd v. Jackson [1992] 4 All E.R. 451. 因为既然该财产是根据衡平法原则而得追及，就不能再根据普通法进行识别。学理建议还是将付入混合账户的资金看作无法识别为好，因为将之识别为开证行财产的特征已经消失。见Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 45 footnote 72.
[112] Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd. [1991] 2 A.C. 548.转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 45 footnote 72.
[113] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 45.
[114] Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 563.
[115] 同上注。第46页。
[116] 同上注。引述原文如下： “thus the bank as beneficiary under the trust retains equitable title in the goods and (if sold) the proceeds of sale.”
[117] Re Hallett’s Estate （1880） 13 Ch. D. 696, [1874] All E.R. Rep. 793.
[118] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 46.
[119] 同上注。
[120] 有更奇特的案例，例如开证申请人和受益人串通在受益人交单获得兑付后，开证申请人以保函形式从从承运人那里获得货物转售，获得货款后逃之夭夭。此时开证行有权起诉承运人和开证申请人。见Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 233.
[121] 同上注。
[122] [1938] 2 K.B. 147.
[123] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 47.
[124] 该条的条文是：”Where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of goods or of the documents of title to goods, any sale, pledge, or other disposition of the goods, made by him when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be as valid as if he were expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make the same; provided that the person taking under the disposition acts in good faith, and has not at the time of the disposition notice that the person making the disposition has not authority to make the same.”转引自Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 47 footnote 78.
[125] 判例似乎证明的确是这一回事，Cahn v. Pockett’s Bristol Channel Steam Packet Co. Ltd. [1899] 1 Q.B. 643(C.A.).因为该善意第三人已经获得完善的普通法上的权利（good title)。另见Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 13, 563.
[126] Raymond Jack, Documents Credits, Butterworths, 1991. see 235.
[127] Paul Todd, Bills of Lading and Bankers’ Documentary Credits, second edition, LLP 1993, see 47 footnote 78.
[128] Midland Bank Ltd. v. Eastcheap Dried Fruit Co. [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 359. 另见Mark Hapgood QC, Paget’s Law of Banking, Eleventh edition, Butterworths, 1996. See 563.
[129] Buton v. McCullough, Letters of Credit, 1988, Matthew Bender. See 3-102.
[130] UCC9-307.
[131] UCC9-304, 9-305.
[132] Ray D. Henson, Handbook on Secured Transactions, West Publishing Co. 1979, second edition. See 20, 21.
[133]中国银行天津市分行诉中天诚（天津）五金矿产贸易有限公司、双龙矿业发展有限公司、中国天诚（集团）总公司信用证垫款纠纷案。天津市高级人民法院2000年6月作出的“（2000）高经初字第1号”《民事判决书》，以及第2、3、4、5、6号民事判决书。该案判决未公布。
[134] 例如上海浦东法院，见《人民法院报》2001年2月15日通讯《浦东审结一进口押汇引发的金融信贷案》。1998年6月30日，被告上海某国际经贸有限公司向原告招商银行上海分行出具一份《进口押汇申请书》，在其申请书中明确：“申请押汇27万美元，期限一个月，按期归还押汇本息。若不能按期归还，贵行可按规定加收逾期利息”等。同年7月2日，被告上海某投资公司向原告出具了《不可撤销担保书》。原告依约放贷27万美元给押汇申请人，利息为7.7%。自同年8月10日至第二年的1月8日，押汇申请人只归还了58984.63美元。1999年5月25日，被告担保人即投资公司再次向原告出具《不可撤销担保书》，其中明确，对借款人未还本息其继续承担连带担保责任。此后两个被告均未按约还款。
