ISBP (part 56)

[PGauntlett]

Another anomaly?

ISBP states, in the section on original/copy docs, as 'clarifying' examples:

'invoice in 1 copy' means 1 original

'one copy of invoice' means 1 copy

I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that in ordinary language there is no difference in meaning between 'invoice in 1 copy' and 'one copy of invoice'. On planet UCP they obviously view thgings differently! The drafters of ISBP have tried to expand Art 20cii but have ended up confusing the matter instead of simplyfying it.

If I have to confirm an l/c containing such a requirement I shall treat each one on its merits and not rely on ISBP.

[edited 12/30/02 12:00:56 PM]
[edited 12/30/02 4:29:20 PM]
[edited 1/1/03 11:24:19 AM]

[NigelHolt]

Phil,

I think I can see where ‘where your coming from’. Presumably your view is that under sub-Art 20cii a credit that required ‘Two copies of invoice’ would require an ‘original’ and a ‘copy’. Therefore, why should ‘One copy of invoice’ be satisfied by a ‘copy’?

It would seem the ‘experts’ do not share this interpretation of sub-Art 20cii and, in this instance, I (currently!) tend to the view that a reasonable case can be made (however I’d prefer not to devote the time to making it) for the approach taken in ISBP which does not involve contradicting any UCP articles.

Lastly, I personally would ‘transgress’ ISBP with great trepidation.

Yours festivally, Jeremy

[PGauntlett]

Hi Jeremy,

I should have headed the post 'ISBP states ......' I was trying to highlight an apparant contradiction within ISBP. I've now edited my original posting.

Phil

[PavelA]

I share the view that it is rather confusing, at least to many.

Firstly ISBP says: “However, it can sometimes be difficult to determine from the wording of a credit whether it requires an original or a copy, and to determine whether that requirement is satisfied by an original or a copy.”

So in my judgement it means that if it can be determined from the L/C wording whether original(s) or copy(ies) is (are) required then the following rules (in ISBP to which we refer) do not apply.

Problem lies, in my view, in the different meaning of the english word “copy” which depends on the context in which it is used. Sometimes “copy” means “piece”, sometimes “non-original”.

Pavel Andrle

[DimitriScoufaridis]

The production of ICC’s doc. of 12 July 1999 on the determination of an “Original” doc. and the relevant para in ISBP on Originals and Copies proved that the existing sub-Articles 20(b) & 20(c) needed further support.

In Webster’s dictionary, the word “copy” means “an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work (as a letter, a painting, a piece of furniture or a dress)”. However, as mentioned by Pavel, I agree with the statement made in ISBP that sometimes it might be difficult to determine from the wording of the credit whether an original or a copy is required.

If I had any doubts on the wording I would prefer to ask for a clarification.

Wishing a very happy and prosperous new year to all!

Dimitri

[NigelHolt]

I've just noticed that the new para 15 in rev 4 talks about presentation of 'two original copies'. An illustration of the differing -and thus potentially confusing- interpretations that can be given to the word 'copy'?
[edited 1/9/03 3:37:05 PM]