The rule of strict compliance in New York is best illustrated by Beyene v. Irving Trust Co., 762 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1985). The letter of credit specified that payment be made on presentation of a bill of lading naming "Mohammed Sofan" as the party to be notified when the goods arrive. However, the bill of lading submitted to the bank with the demand for payment misspelled the name as "Mohammed Soran." The confirming bank refused payment because of this discrepancy, and the beneficiary sued. Was this a "material" discrepancy, or was it "so insignificant as not to relieve the issuing and confirming bank of its obligation to pay"? The court compared and contrasted the misspelling of "Sofan" as "Soran" to the misspelling of "Smith" as "Smithh." The court stated that the misspelling of "Smith" is not a discrepancy because the meaning is "unmistakably clear despite what is obviously a typographical error." How did the court decide? Is there a difference between the misspellings of "Smith" and "Sofan"? For a more recent example, see Hanil Bank v. Pt. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2444 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The case involves an Indonesian bank that refused payment on a letter of credit it issued, which had been subsequently negotiated to a Korean bank on the basis that the beneficiary was identified as Sung Jin Electronics Company rather than by its correct name Sung Jun Electronics Company.