of shifting the legal exposure from the seller to the buyer. The policies behind adopting this principle of abstraction are purely commercial. Whilst the bank is under an obligation to identify that the correct documents exist, they are not expected to examine whether the documents themselves are valid. That is to say, the bank is not responsible for investigating the underlying facts of each transaction, whether the goods are of the sufficient – and specified – quality or quantity. Because the transaction operates on a negotiable instrument, it is the document itself which holds the value - not the goods to which the reference. This means that the bank need only be concerned with whether the document fulfils the requirements stipulated in the letter of credit. Documents required under the LC, could in certain circumstances, be different from those required under the sale transaction. This would place banks in a dilemma in deciding which terms to follow if required to look behind the credit agreement. Since the basic function of the credit is to provide a seller with the certainty of payment for documentary duties, it would seem necessary that banks should honor their obligation in spite of any buyer allegations of misfeasance. If this were not the case, financial institutions would be much less inclined to issue documentary credits because of the risk, inconvenience, and expense involved in determining the underlying goods. Financial institutions do not act as 'middlemen' but rather, as paying agents on behalf of the buyer. Courts have emphasized that buyers always have a remedy for an action upon the contract of sale and that it would be a calamity for the business world if a bank had to investigate every breach of contract. With the UCP 600 rules the ICC sought to make the rules more flexible, suggesting that data in a document "need not be identical to, but must not conflict with data in that document, any other stipulated document, or the credit", as a way to account for any minor documentary errors. If this were not the case, the bank would be entitled to withhold payment even if the deviation is purely technical or even typographical. However, in practice, many banks still hold to the principle of strict compliance, since it offers concrete guarantees to all parties. The general legal maxim de minimis non curat lex (literally "The law does not concern itself