Jeremy,
UCP 600 has also omitted the possibility that a different place of receipt ( or a pre-carriage) from the port of loading stated on the transport doc or the practice outlined in para 80 of ISBP.
In such a case , there would be no UCP Art that you may refer to.
Regards,
Yahya
20(a)(iii)
20(a)(iii)
Yahya,
I am aware that UCP600 sub-Article 20(a) omits reference to a bill of lading indicating a place for receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading. However, I do not agree that there is not a UCP600 article to refer to in such a situation. The relevant sub-Articles are sub-Articles 20(a)(ii) and (iii). Provided they are met the B/L is logically compliant.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 2/27/2007 11:54:51 AM]
I am aware that UCP600 sub-Article 20(a) omits reference to a bill of lading indicating a place for receipt or taking in charge different from the port of loading. However, I do not agree that there is not a UCP600 article to refer to in such a situation. The relevant sub-Articles are sub-Articles 20(a)(ii) and (iii). Provided they are met the B/L is logically compliant.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 2/27/2007 11:54:51 AM]
20(a)(iii)
Jeremy,
I agree with you ,
Yes, you can refer to provisions that you mentioned.
But I consider that such omissions shall raise more different interpretations and you would have to give more explanations
Regards,
Yahya
I agree with you ,
Yes, you can refer to provisions that you mentioned.
But I consider that such omissions shall raise more different interpretations and you would have to give more explanations
Regards,
Yahya