I would accept a CMR which is not marked "copy for consignor/sender/shipper" (which means that it is not marked at all) as long as there is no doubt that it is not a copy for other purposes such as copy for the transporter etc. and that all other requirements are being fulfilled (document ...

If I understand your question correctly your concern is the word "received" instead of "accepted" as stated in UCP. In my opinion the AWB you described could be acceptable to a document checker in the sense of article 27(a)(ii). The word "received" means to me that the ...

TOLee is correct in referring to ISBP. Besides that it was also - at least as far as my experience shows - common practice of banks to require a signature on a certificate.
Best regards
Heinz

This is also a topic I had sent a reply on yesterday but it does not show up. This "addition" needs no authentication as long as such addition does not alter the contents of the document in any way. The mere fact that a document is being issued in different ways (handwriting, typewriter et...

This is me again. I had posted a reply yesterday but it does not show up.
I was of the opinion that a truck consignment note is to be considered a transport document and is to be checked under article 28.
Kind regards
Heinz

The court case you mentioned shows that it might turn out to be dangerous to add a clause as the one mentioned to a rejection notice. So it is better not to write it. However, it is a fact of live that most banks actually hand over documents to the applicant as soon as he accepts the documents despi...

I do not see any reason why such addition should be a discrepancy. The fact alone that a document is being issued by different ways (handwriting, typewriting etc.) does not make this document discrepant. I once experienced the same problem with a duplicate railway consignment note being issued by ty...

Dear friends Here I am again. There is nothing I know that speaks against a truck consignment note being a transport document. If a credit calls for such document and this document is made out subject to article 28 (which means that this document has to be signed by a carrier or his agent) it is OK....

Hi T.O. There seems to be a misunderstanding as at the moment I do not quite feel like a revision because of ISBP, eUCP etc. all, of them being new and based on UCP500. I was feeling like a revision before these works had been done but now - I do not know for sure. This is the reason why I am intere...

Hi friends This is me again. Let me give you some of my thoughts on this subject. Nobody can blame me for being principally against a revision of UCP but at the moment I ask myself : why ? It was already in 1998 as I wrote an article in Documentary Credit World headed "Is it time for UCP600 ?&q...