What if you receive two B/Ls evidencing shipments on DIFFERENT vessels under the same and one invoice.
I do not try to question the partial shipment but the shipment date and presentation date.

Do you calculate the presentation period from 1st B/L date ?


Thanks
Yahya

Shahed,
A transferable credit available with any bank must specify a bank (or banks) who is authorized to transfer,otherweise , only the issuing bank would be considered as the transferring bank.

Regards,
Yahya

I would appreciate your views on the following ; I'm not sure whether this issue is relevant to ISBP (681) para 175 and I'm able to interpret correctly this para at all. This para outlines how an expiry date should be incorporated on insurance docs. It basicly says that an expiry must not relate to ...

Jeremy, I didn't mean I agree with the conclusion but I have to say that the issues that I came across so far this time, concluded as reflected in the opinion. I 'm also aware of the voting " three choices" and I noticed the conclusion is not in line with the voting as well as the wording ...

Thanks Jeremy,
I have just received the revised opinions. It is indeed a good question and in my opinion, the conclusion exactly corresponds with the practice .

Regards,
Yahya

I have received an export l/c having the condition of " Shipments must be effected by containers" 1) Can it be simply deemed a non doc cond and disregarded ? 2) If you determined that the goods were not shipped in containers on presented TD , would the TD be considered as discrepant ? 3) I...

My view , the relevant para of ISBP is itself ambiguous and leads to the conclusion that "a third party condition" in a credit would prevail all the conditions regarding by whom the required docs except drafts would be issued. Since we already have arts of UCP600 about description of uncle...

Is it possible just to say that the opinions R.251 and R.556,the opinions which were given under UCP500 and by referring to the sentence stated in the Commentary, there is no linkage term living on anymore within the scope of UCP600.

Regards,

Albert, My view the doc is discrepant. This is a good example for a document reviewed under sub art 14 F i.e. the intent requirement in the credit is that the doc should evidence that the inspection has been done for the goods. But the said doc appears to say it wasn't done so. The doc doesn't fullf...

As you know in the lifetime of UCP500 there was an "consistency" concept mostly relating to the whole of docs consisting of a presentation must appear to the same transaction i.e. there should be a sufficient link between the data content of each document.(This view was expressed by the IC...