The SBLC called for the default statement signed by the authorized signor of the beneficiary. When beneficiary filed a claim, does he need to identify himself as the "authorized signor" by marking these words under the signature? Similar case may happen in both a LC or a bank guarantee. Is it a discrepancy is just sign with a company chop and lacking the words "authorized signature"
Regards
Raymond
Rule 4.07 Required Signature on a Document
-
JessieLiew
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:19 pm
Rule 4.07 Required Signature on a Document
Dear Raymond,
Under Rule 4.07 (ii) of the ISP98:- Unless a standby specifies the status of a person who must sign, no indication of status is necessary. Based on this rule and that the SBLC calls for the default statement signed by the “authorised signor” of the beneficiary, I would think that the signor must have an indication below as “authorized signature” and the like.
Under Rule 4.07 (ii) of the ISP98:- Unless a standby specifies the status of a person who must sign, no indication of status is necessary. Based on this rule and that the SBLC calls for the default statement signed by the “authorised signor” of the beneficiary, I would think that the signor must have an indication below as “authorized signature” and the like.
Rule 4.07 Required Signature on a Document
Thanks Jessie.
You have the same approach when the document is under UCP600?
You have the same approach when the document is under UCP600?
Rule 4.07 Required Signature on a Document
I raised this question at IIBLP's 2008 survey in Tampa and got what I expected. The bankers opined that "authorized signature" or the like should appear on the document and the lawyers disagreed. This is one of those areas where unwritten LC practice seems plainly unjustified to lawyers (and judges). To put it differently, the lawyers reject the notion that "authorized signer" is a "title" within the meaning of ISP Rule 4.07. Regards, Jim Barnes