Dear all,
DC requires agent's name and address on BILL OF LADING.
Discrepancy raised: the address does not indicate street name.
Please comment
Thanks
Daniel
agent's address
-
HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:15 pm
agent's address
Hi Daniel,
In my opinion, it is not a discrepancy.
As DC does not provide a specific name and address of the agent, banks will not check whether the name and the address of the agent indicated on the bill of lading is correct.
What’s more. In practice, not all addresses contain street names. Therefore, the absence of a street name in the agent’s address does not constitute a discrepancy.
Best regards,
N.H. Duc
In my opinion, it is not a discrepancy.
As DC does not provide a specific name and address of the agent, banks will not check whether the name and the address of the agent indicated on the bill of lading is correct.
What’s more. In practice, not all addresses contain street names. Therefore, the absence of a street name in the agent’s address does not constitute a discrepancy.
Best regards,
N.H. Duc
-
RobReissner
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
agent's address
Agree. It is generally acknowledged that requirements in a letter of credit should be clear and precise. Failing indication of a specific address or a definition of details the address should contain, banks will accept any address given. Also, based on what would it be mandatory that an address is only correct if there is a name of a street connected to it?
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
Kind regards,
Rob Reissner
agent's address
I agree it's a rubbish 'discrepancy'.
agent's address
Dear all,
Thank you.
I thought as much.
The problem these days (it seems) is that it is getting difficult to reject a discrepancy just by using your common sense or your brains. You always have to find a good reason in the ICC literature to make your point .
In this case there is nothing except may be ISBP par 2. Et encore ...
I wish you a nice week end
Daniel.
Thank you.
I thought as much.
The problem these days (it seems) is that it is getting difficult to reject a discrepancy just by using your common sense or your brains. You always have to find a good reason in the ICC literature to make your point .
In this case there is nothing except may be ISBP par 2. Et encore ...
I wish you a nice week end
Daniel.