B/L presented with notation "part of 1x40'GP".Would the presentation be discrepant by reason of ISBP art 114?

Dear colleagues,
please share with your point of view in this matter, do you agree with the discrepancy?
Thank you in advance, Anna.

We received from issuing bank refusal of documents due to: 'cmr: carrier in field 16 is missing resp. in field 23 not indicated 'as carrier'. Indeed the field 16 was empty, but in field 23, with preprinted notation: 'signature and stamp of the carrier', there was stamp and signature. Was the bank ri...

Thank you so much for your comment. I agree with you as regards the more relevant sub-Article indicated by you, nevertheless it is obvious that the documents are issued in accordance with L/C and provisions of UCP500. We have written to the opening bank so many times, eleven tracers remained unrepli...

Dear colleagues, we would be very grateful for your opinion in the following matter: we, as the advising bank, received from one of Spanish banks L/C with, among others, following terms: - L/C available with the opening bank by payment - L/C amount EUR 34.034,91 - percentage credit amt tolerance: 00...

Hi,

coming back to Peter's question I'm intresting whether in your opinion clause in the L/C concerning B/L'part container load is allowed' covers the Peter's discepany.

rgds

Hi, I'm looking for your opinion concerning B/L issued as follows: place of receipt: Nanjing, pre-carriage by: V879-67, port of loading: Nanjing, name of vessel: Kristina v.8uru, port of discharge: Gdynia via Hamburg, final delivery: Gdynia. B/L was claused 'ON BOARD TRUCK' + date L/C required B/L c...