Being in big hurry I wrote above a stupid thing.
What I meant is that now word "duplicata/duplicate" it is stated only on the bottom of the page near the "4".
COTIF Convention (in force since 1 May 1985) Title II-art.11 states "the railway shall certify receipt of the goods and the date of acceptance for carriage by affixing the date stamp to or making the accounting machine entry on the duplicate of the consignment note before returning the duplicate to the consignor.The duplicate shall not have effect as the consignment note accompanying the goods, nor as a bill of lading".
Reading this I understand that, as already stipulated by the ISBP/UCP600, the duplicate the consignor receive from the railway is to be considered as consignor's original.
Bogdan
24(b)(iii)
24(b)(iii)
Being in bug hurry I wrote something stupid above.I meant to write that now word "duplicate/duplicata" it is stated on bottom of page near "4".
COTIF Convention Title II art.11 states "the railway shall certify receipt of the goods and the date of aceptance for carriage by affixing the date stamp to or making the accounting machine entry on the duplicate of the consignment note before returning the duplicate to the consignor.The duplicate shall not have effect as the consignment note accompanying the goods, nor as a bill of lading."
I understand that, as already stated under UCP600, the duplicate is to be considered the consignor's original he receive from the railway.
Bogdan
COTIF Convention Title II art.11 states "the railway shall certify receipt of the goods and the date of aceptance for carriage by affixing the date stamp to or making the accounting machine entry on the duplicate of the consignment note before returning the duplicate to the consignor.The duplicate shall not have effect as the consignment note accompanying the goods, nor as a bill of lading."
I understand that, as already stated under UCP600, the duplicate is to be considered the consignor's original he receive from the railway.
Bogdan
24(b)(iii)
Jim,
I obviously agree as to the ‘decisions’ contents, however I cannot see that:
1. the provisions regarding ‘duplicate original’ (where the word ‘duplicate’ is an adjective rather than a noun and the noun 'oroginal' is present) or ‘third of three’ can automatically be equated with the noun ‘duplicate’.
2. the provisions regarding "What is not an 'Original'?" can be considered as being exclusive, i.e. if it does not fall within the ‘categories’ listed it is automatically an original.
More to the point, the inclusion of 24(b)(ii) can only be logically explained by the Drafting Group considering that a document -other than a rail transport document- marked “duplicate” should not be accepted as an original. If this were not the case this sub-Article would be totally and utterly otiose.
It is a pity that the Drafting Group did not, instead of trying to describe what constitutes an original, opt to simply say any document presented would be considered an original unless it fails to meet certain criteria and that certain specified things, e.g. the word ‘duplicate’, were not indications of non-originality. But that’s all ‘water under the bridge’.
Bogdan, to err is human, as I often have to remind myself. Regarding your question, as my role does not involve examining documents I rarely see any, so I cannot answer your question.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 8/16/2007 9:29:46 AM: 24(b)(iii) s/b 24(b)(ii)]
I obviously agree as to the ‘decisions’ contents, however I cannot see that:
1. the provisions regarding ‘duplicate original’ (where the word ‘duplicate’ is an adjective rather than a noun and the noun 'oroginal' is present) or ‘third of three’ can automatically be equated with the noun ‘duplicate’.
2. the provisions regarding "What is not an 'Original'?" can be considered as being exclusive, i.e. if it does not fall within the ‘categories’ listed it is automatically an original.
More to the point, the inclusion of 24(b)(ii) can only be logically explained by the Drafting Group considering that a document -other than a rail transport document- marked “duplicate” should not be accepted as an original. If this were not the case this sub-Article would be totally and utterly otiose.
It is a pity that the Drafting Group did not, instead of trying to describe what constitutes an original, opt to simply say any document presented would be considered an original unless it fails to meet certain criteria and that certain specified things, e.g. the word ‘duplicate’, were not indications of non-originality. But that’s all ‘water under the bridge’.
Bogdan, to err is human, as I often have to remind myself. Regarding your question, as my role does not involve examining documents I rarely see any, so I cannot answer your question.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 8/16/2007 9:29:46 AM: 24(b)(iii) s/b 24(b)(ii)]
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy, I don't think we disagree. Given the trouble under UCP500 Article 20b and the avoidance of trouble under the originals decision, I think the consensus was to track the decision language, even though the UCP600 drafting group was free to reformulate the rules on originals. Regards, Jim
24(b)(iii)
I have slowly (in the morning on the train) been ploughing through Prof. Jim Byrne’s ‘The Comparison of UCP600 & UCP500’. With respect to sub-Art. 24(b)(ii) he says on p201, section 11:
‘UCP600 Article 24(b)(ii) MODIFIES UCP600 Article 17 … providing that for the purposes of determining the originality of a rail transport document a transport document marked “duplicate” will be accepted as an original.’ [my emphasis]
To me the only reasonable interpretation of his view that sub-Art. 24(b)(ii) ‘modifies’ Article 17 is that he considers that were it not for sub-Art. 24b)(ii) a rail transport document marked “duplicate” would automatically fall foul of Article 17. It would therefore seem that I have at least the support of one esteemed commentator for the views I express regarding sub-Art. 24(b)(ii) in my various postings.
[edited 8/16/2007 9:43:30 AM]
‘UCP600 Article 24(b)(ii) MODIFIES UCP600 Article 17 … providing that for the purposes of determining the originality of a rail transport document a transport document marked “duplicate” will be accepted as an original.’ [my emphasis]
To me the only reasonable interpretation of his view that sub-Art. 24(b)(ii) ‘modifies’ Article 17 is that he considers that were it not for sub-Art. 24b)(ii) a rail transport document marked “duplicate” would automatically fall foul of Article 17. It would therefore seem that I have at least the support of one esteemed commentator for the views I express regarding sub-Art. 24(b)(ii) in my various postings.
[edited 8/16/2007 9:43:30 AM]
24(b)(iii)
May be there is a connection with ISBP 28 as the document has actually been issued in more than one original.
All sorts of documents have been issued for centuries and accepted as "originals" without any difficulty. I wonder what is the problem now.
Daniel
All sorts of documents have been issued for centuries and accepted as "originals" without any difficulty. I wonder what is the problem now.
Daniel