As per the ISBP doc.:
A. Para 25 states: Virgules (slash marks “/”) may have different meanings and unless apparent in the context used, should not be used as a substitute for a word. In fact Jeremy and Laurence already have different interpetations on this.
B. Para 87 states: If a credit gives a geographical area or range of ports of loading and/or discharge (e.g. “Any European port”), the bill of lading must indicate the actual port of loading and/or port of discharge, which must be within the geographical area or range quoted. ICC Opinions R368, R 459.
Based on the above, then the port of discharge "Valparaiso/San Antonio" would rather be seen as a discrepancy.
Dimitri
Article 23
-
DimitriScoufaridis
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:17 pm
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Article 23
Leo,
this hinges on one's interpretation of the solidus, which, I accept, is not uniform. Taking my interpretation as previously outlined, the DC gives a specific instruction allowing Valparaiso and/or San Antonio. Thus the B/L is acceptable.
Laurence
this hinges on one's interpretation of the solidus, which, I accept, is not uniform. Taking my interpretation as previously outlined, the DC gives a specific instruction allowing Valparaiso and/or San Antonio. Thus the B/L is acceptable.
Laurence
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Article 23
Dimitri,
whilst I accept what Par. 25 & 87 of ISBP says, the use of the solidus allows the interpretation "and/or" in relation to the ports, superseding the ISBP interpretation.
Sometimes captains of vessels are given options to discharge at alternate ports depending on conditions prevalent, e.g. comparative no. of days congestion and ensuing costs. This may or may not be by agreement with the shipper/s.
EVERY PORT OF DISCHARGE IS AN INTENDED PORT
Since most Bs/L are issued after sailing, it is generally possible to indicate the factual port of loading in the B/L.
On the same basis, although most Bs/L issued state a port of discharge, this cannot be a factual statement, since the document is issued prior to discharge of the cargo. Even if we only consider unusual circumstances such as storms forcing deviation from intended port of discharge, or the natural disaster in Kobe some years back, it is clear that we cannot completely rely on "port of discharge" stated in the B/L to be a statement of fact, as it is stated before the fact. At the time of sailing, the master may be under direct instructions to call at a certain port, but the fact that this can easily be changed precludes one from accepting "port of discharge" as stated on a B/L as being factual.
Laurence
whilst I accept what Par. 25 & 87 of ISBP says, the use of the solidus allows the interpretation "and/or" in relation to the ports, superseding the ISBP interpretation.
Sometimes captains of vessels are given options to discharge at alternate ports depending on conditions prevalent, e.g. comparative no. of days congestion and ensuing costs. This may or may not be by agreement with the shipper/s.
EVERY PORT OF DISCHARGE IS AN INTENDED PORT
Since most Bs/L are issued after sailing, it is generally possible to indicate the factual port of loading in the B/L.
On the same basis, although most Bs/L issued state a port of discharge, this cannot be a factual statement, since the document is issued prior to discharge of the cargo. Even if we only consider unusual circumstances such as storms forcing deviation from intended port of discharge, or the natural disaster in Kobe some years back, it is clear that we cannot completely rely on "port of discharge" stated in the B/L to be a statement of fact, as it is stated before the fact. At the time of sailing, the master may be under direct instructions to call at a certain port, but the fact that this can easily be changed precludes one from accepting "port of discharge" as stated on a B/L as being factual.
Laurence