17(e)

General questions regarding UCP 600
DanielD
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:16 pm

17(e)

Post by DanielD » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:00 am

Bogdan,
Yes, I agree but anyway, I will be interested to receive an "official" answer to this issue hopefully in the Commentary.
Daniel
DonSmith
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:17 pm

17(e)

Post by DonSmith » Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:00 am

Wonderful discussion & logic trail! Trust this will be addressed in the commentary in a precise manner that leaves no room for doubt and for the creation of 'mythical' discrepancies.

For me, if I want all of those invoices signed, I would explicitly say in the credit "commercial invoice in original and 5 copies, all of which must be signed" or something similar - the less confusion the beter.

ALSO - we should recall the thrust of the UCP600 is to place the responsibility on the issuer to be clear and precise in their documentary requirements - i.e. lack of clarity should be held against the issuer of the credit, not the poor beneficiary or nominated bank.

Happy 2007 to All.
Don Smith
NigelHolt
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

17(e)

Post by NigelHolt » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:00 am

I see that the latest proposed revision to ISBP contains, as para 32, a sentence that reads:

‘Copies of documents need not be signed.’

I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies.
Post Reply