AS AGENT TO THE CARRIER

THI THUY MYT_ · Post by **THI THUY MYT_** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:00 am

Dear Sir/Madam
.
Pls comment about following disc a/f: "B/L is signed by an agent to the carrier instead of by an agent for or on behalf of the carrier as per article 20 letter a paragraph I of UCP 600". Is this disc valid or not?
.
FROM OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT DISC. WE ASSUME TWO ABV PHRASES ARE COMPLETELY SAME MEANING AND CAN NOT MISUNDERSTOOD.
.
P/S: issuing bank cited this disc to ask for reducing price.
Hope to receive yr reply soon . Tks so much!!!!!!!!!
Best regards,
AK.

HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid · Post by **HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:00 am

No discrepancy.

Regards,
Duc N.H

THI THUY MYT_ · Post by **THI THUY MYT_** » Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:00 am

Dear Mr Duc,
.
Tks very much for yr reply.
Pls give me your opinion clearly about this.
.
We sent many messages to arguing with issuing bank. However, they still decide it is disc upon imitating servilely words stated in Art 20/UCP600.(...Any signature by an agent must indicate whether the agent has signed for or on behalf of the carrier....)
.
Could you help me to summit this case to ICC for official opinion?
.
Best regards,
A.K

HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid · Post by **HOANGTHIANHTHU_invalid** » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:00 am

I see that “agent to” or “agent to and on behalf of” is still being used interchangeably with “agent for” or “agent for and/or on behalf of” though not so commonly. Notwithstanding the wording of Article 20, it should be accepted in this case as (I agree with you) it can’t be misunderstood.

Best regards,
Duc N.H

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:00 am

Not 100% sure but docdex 216 and opinion R 569 might help
Daniel

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:00 am

Not a discrepancy. The meaning in this case is the same as that reflected in the UCP. The UCP does not demand that the statement be exact nor does it use the phrases "for or on behalf of" in quotes.

THI THUY MYT_ · Post by **THI THUY MYT_** » Fri Mar 11, 2011 12:00 am

Dear,
Tks for all yr reply. Because almost everyone assume it is not disc, I think issuing bank read them and was obligated to pay us. But, we reduced the 50pct inv amount.
We hope someone raise this case to ICC for offical opinion so that other banks will not be the same as us.
Best regards,
AK