I am very pleased to see that Mr. P Gauntlett considers that it is illogical and against the common sense that when the master signs the BL, he does not need to give his name, whereas when the agent signs for the master, the master's name has to be given.
I know the answer for this misfit in the transport articles of UCP 500 from one of the "top guns" who have involved in drafting the UCP 500. However, I cannot disclose the details here to protect my friend who has given me encouragement and support when I established my consultancy business in 1992.
I am sure that when the UCP 500 is revised, this provision will be definitely out.
Again changes in shipping practice are not reflected in the UCP 500 articles.
In some parts of Asia, such as Hong Kong, some shipowners try to save the administration and personnel costs by hiring the entire crew, from master to mechanics and officers by asking a manpower agency to arrange the whole team for the voyage. So the name of the master is changing with every voyage. Some masters may need to take their holidays and can be replaced from time to time.
If a BL is issued earlier than the actual on board date to satisfy a big customer's needs, then how can the name of the master be known at the time of issue? This situation is only applicable to those small carriers who need busines so badly that they may have to do anything the cusotmer wants for survival in a highly competitive market, such as issuing a switched BL that does not register the actual facts.
As a consultant to forwarders, we have the privilege of knowing what happened in the kitchen. There are lots of horrible stories which are not appropriate to be disclosed so openly here.
I am from www.tolee.com
[edited 5/22/01 3:48:40 PM]
[edited 10/26/01 3:14:01 AM]