A C/P B/L shows the usual: " In witness whereof, the Master has signed..." but the B/L is actually signed by the owner.
Correct or not?
Daniel
C/P B/L
C/P B/L
In my opinion the validity of the document by law might not be given, as the wrong party (out of the B/L conditions) signed the B/L. Here i would see the same problem as a B/L in Germany would not be valid when it is signed by facsimile signature as this would not constitute a valid document of title as per German law, when it is is issued in Germany.
I would think, if the document would not be valid because of the wrong party that signed the B/L, not document of title or B/L was presented.
best regards
GerhardH
[edited 5/8/2007 9:04:48 AM]
I would think, if the document would not be valid because of the wrong party that signed the B/L, not document of title or B/L was presented.
best regards
GerhardH
[edited 5/8/2007 9:04:48 AM]
C/P B/L
Daniel,
I incline to the view this is not a discrepancy.
Firstly, the identification of this possible ‘anomaly’ seems to go beyond the ‘reasonable care’ standard. In other words, it is data that a bank need or ought not to concern itself with.
Secondly, if I am wrong, it seems to me that it is a standard form that on this occasion has been signed by the owner rather than the master and that for ‘master’ one should obviously read ‘owner’. Therefore, I do not see any ground for regarding it as ‘internally inconsistent’.
Jeremy
I incline to the view this is not a discrepancy.
Firstly, the identification of this possible ‘anomaly’ seems to go beyond the ‘reasonable care’ standard. In other words, it is data that a bank need or ought not to concern itself with.
Secondly, if I am wrong, it seems to me that it is a standard form that on this occasion has been signed by the owner rather than the master and that for ‘master’ one should obviously read ‘owner’. Therefore, I do not see any ground for regarding it as ‘internally inconsistent’.
Jeremy