Article 20/22

jsheehan · Post by **jsheehan** » Wed May 19, 2010 1:00 am

An LC REQUIRES original Bs/L "marked freight payable as per Charter Party". The BL presented complies with the LC and with Article 22 but since the LC does not specifically state that charter party Bs/L are acceptable, a discrepancy is noted that "charter party BL presented".
Is this a correct position? It seems to me that by requiring a BL marked "freight payable as per charter party" the LC is in fact requiring presentation of a CP BL. Comments are appreciated. Thanks

HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid · Post by **HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid** » Thu May 20, 2010 1:00 am

Hi,

The inclusion in the bill of lading of “freight payable as per charter party” is an indication that the bill of lading was issued subject to a charter party (see R647/TA662rev).

I agree with you that by requiring a bill of lading marked "freight payable as per charter party" the LC is in fact requiring presentation of a Charter Party Bill of Lading.

Regards,
N.H.Duc

[edited 5/20/2010 8:06:43 AM]

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu May 20, 2010 1:00 am

Requiring a BL "marked freight payable as per Charter Party" can only mean that a CPBL has to be presented. Therefore, there is not a scintilla of merit in the 'discrepancy'.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu May 20, 2010 1:00 am

See also R578
Daniel

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Fri May 21, 2010 1:00 am

While not required to do so, it would have been helpful had the advising bank clarified the inconsistency of an LC requiring a Ocean BL and then requiring a statement that "freight payable per CP". It would have taken the guesswork out of it. I do not believe that the opinions mentioned cover the details described in this instance. In general it should not be a discrepancy but it is really poor issuance and these have led to interesting court decisions. Better to get the clarification and/or amendment up-front before presenting documents.