Endorsement

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:00 am

Dear all,

What would be the consequences of an endorsement "without recourse" in a Bill of Lading?

Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:00 am

Sorry, no idea Daniel. The answer might have something to do with if 'recourse' of any kind can be exercised to an endorser of a BL by a subsequent 'holder'?
[edited 1/23/2009 12:02:34 PM]

JimBarnes · Post by **JimBarnes** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:00 am

Recourse is a concept I associate with drafts, not BLs. Applicable draft law may provide for endorser recourse and for warranty liability and also provide for disclaiming each type of endorser liability.

Applicable BL law may provide that the endorser of a BL makes warranties, e.g., as to genuineness. A disclaimer of recourse liability might or might not be treated as a disclaimer of warranties.

Given uncertainty as to its legal effect, I would consider whether this disclaimer makes the BL non-complying. (What would you do with a BL endorsed "without responsibility for the genuineness of the signature of the carrier or the effectiveness of this endorsement"?)
Regards, Jim Barnes

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:00 am

Jeremy, M. Barnes,

Thanks for your views. I was asking because we have seen such an endorsement in Geneva.

Daniel

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:00 am

Jeremy, I mean a kind of recourse made by an endorsee to an endorser who endorsed "without recourse". In my opinion, but I may be very wrong, a buyer (endorsee or not) would have a recourse against the seller (endorser or not) in case of a breach (of contract). And an endorsee who takes possession of the goods would have a recourse against the carrier in case the carrier is responsible for goods lost or damaged. In other words the recourse would not be dictated by the endorsements (or the absence of them) with recourse or not, but by the contracts of sale and carriage. Therefore as Jim Barnes put it, recourse is not a concept associated with B/L.
I am not sure if I am clear???
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:00 am

Aboslutely clear Daniel, if what you are saying is that you too believe this 'restricted' endorsement is not of any legal effect.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:00 am

Yes, I believe that. Unfortunately, as a Ph.D lawyer told me, these matters (bills of exchange, docs. of title and the like) are hardly taught these days in our schools and universities (at least in the beautiful and picturesque Switzerland). Maybe, it is not the case in the merry England.
So, there is a "zone grise" where everybody may come with her/his opinion.
Best regards
Daniel