Sub-Article 13a requires that documents are examined ‘on their face’. In addition, many other articles require that something ‘appear on its/their face’ (Art’s 23 – 30 ,34 37 etc).
While the meaning of ‘on its/their face’ ought to be clear, I believe that nonetheless it causes confusion. For example, many -including those whose first language is English- seem to think it refers to the ‘front’ of documents (a view that is 100% wrong). The recent discussion regarding ‘non-surrender clauses’ in bills of lading seem to offer a prime example of this confusion.
Also, this expression seems not to have any equivalent in many foreign languages (hence much of the -therefore quite understandable- confusion among ‘non-native’ English speakers). For example, the French version of UCP500, sub-Article 13a, translated back into English simply reads:
‘Banks must examine all document stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to ascertain whether or not they appear to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit.’
(‘Les banques doivent examiner avec un soin raisonnable tous les documents stipulés dans le crédit pour vérifier s'ils présentent ou non l'apparence de conformité avec les termes et conditions du crédit.’)
Overall, it seem to me that the expression ‘on its/their face’ adds nothing beneficial to the UCP, rather it is detrimental, and that therefore in the next revision it should be completely dropped.
What do others think?
[edited 9/15/2004 9:04:21 PM: Slip of the brain]
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
Jeremy,
whilst I agree with you that a better wording could have been chosen, and that native English speakers sometimes have difficulty with the correct meaning of "on its face", to remove it rather than replace it would be disastrously detrimental.
I think that a more appropriate wording might be "at face value". I do not intend to change the current meaning of "on its face", but to make it clearer, both in English and to facilitate translation.
In my view, both of these wordings suggest that a document checker is not intended to be an expert in discerning fraud from the genuine article, but that a reasonable check on the validity of each document is performed, whereby the document "appears genuine". This check is fundamental to the LC process, but it must also protect the bank doing the checking, from any suggestion that it guarantees the genuineness of those documents so checked. Without this check, there is no discernable value to the beneficiary. Without the above protection to the bank, there is no good reason for a bank to take on such a risk.
I would slightly differ in your translation from the French. I would have translated that section as :
‘Banks must examine all document stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to check whether or not they appear to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit.’
I prefer the word "check" to "ascertain" because
"ascertain" implies a definitive result and document checkers are not intended to be such experts.
FACE up to it, Jeremy, on it's face, it's essential.
Laurence
whilst I agree with you that a better wording could have been chosen, and that native English speakers sometimes have difficulty with the correct meaning of "on its face", to remove it rather than replace it would be disastrously detrimental.
I think that a more appropriate wording might be "at face value". I do not intend to change the current meaning of "on its face", but to make it clearer, both in English and to facilitate translation.
In my view, both of these wordings suggest that a document checker is not intended to be an expert in discerning fraud from the genuine article, but that a reasonable check on the validity of each document is performed, whereby the document "appears genuine". This check is fundamental to the LC process, but it must also protect the bank doing the checking, from any suggestion that it guarantees the genuineness of those documents so checked. Without this check, there is no discernable value to the beneficiary. Without the above protection to the bank, there is no good reason for a bank to take on such a risk.
I would slightly differ in your translation from the French. I would have translated that section as :
‘Banks must examine all document stipulated in the Credit with reasonable care, to check whether or not they appear to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Credit.’
I prefer the word "check" to "ascertain" because
"ascertain" implies a definitive result and document checkers are not intended to be such experts.
FACE up to it, Jeremy, on it's face, it's essential.
Laurence
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
Dear Jeremy,
I will certainly give your interesting question more thought in the near future.
My first feeling is that we might well live without "on its face phrase". The phrase was (is) still not itself universally understood and therefore needed (needs futher explanation. If I am not mistaken there are some ICC Banking Commission Opinions which deal with this topic.
I am of the opinion that "to appear" might do on its own. Actually when we translated UCP500 into Czech language, we also managed only with translation
of - to appear - and our translation (we believe)means "how the documents appear on their face" without having any "direct" language equivalent of "on its face" in our Czech translation.
On the other hand I think that if we have used this phrase for many years - and it took so much time and effort to make its meaning understood (even yet not by everybody in the world), any change must be well thought through.
I certainly do not think that "at face value" would be a good replacement.
With kind regards,
Pavel Andrle
[edited 9/16/2004 12:22:55 PM]
I will certainly give your interesting question more thought in the near future.
My first feeling is that we might well live without "on its face phrase". The phrase was (is) still not itself universally understood and therefore needed (needs futher explanation. If I am not mistaken there are some ICC Banking Commission Opinions which deal with this topic.
I am of the opinion that "to appear" might do on its own. Actually when we translated UCP500 into Czech language, we also managed only with translation
of - to appear - and our translation (we believe)means "how the documents appear on their face" without having any "direct" language equivalent of "on its face" in our Czech translation.
On the other hand I think that if we have used this phrase for many years - and it took so much time and effort to make its meaning understood (even yet not by everybody in the world), any change must be well thought through.
I certainly do not think that "at face value" would be a good replacement.
With kind regards,
Pavel Andrle
[edited 9/16/2004 12:22:55 PM]
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
Thank you for taking the time to express your views, Laurence & Pavel.
I agree, Laurence, that someone translating back from the French, with no knowledge of the UCP, would most likely translate ‘verifier’ as ‘to check’.
Turning to the central thrust of -what I understand to be- your views, my belief is that there is not currently any requirement that a document examiner check the apparent ‘validity of each document’ to determine it appears genuine. My understanding is that the words ‘on its/their face’ are simply intended to reinforce the fact that only what counts is appearance, not fact. (I assume, quite possibly erroneously, that these words are ‘inspired’ by S29(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which refers to ‘a bill, complete and regular on the face of it’.)
Finally, I would imagine that the translation problem could remain. For instance, how would you translate ‘at face value’ into French? (Incidentally, looking –today- in the rather old English – French dictionary we have in the office, I notice ‘on the face of it’ is translated as ‘au premier aspect’ or ‘à première vue’. I wonder why the translator(s) did not go for one of these phrases.)
Anyone else any views regarding ‘on its/their face’?
[edited 9/17/2004 1:19:45 PM]
I agree, Laurence, that someone translating back from the French, with no knowledge of the UCP, would most likely translate ‘verifier’ as ‘to check’.
Turning to the central thrust of -what I understand to be- your views, my belief is that there is not currently any requirement that a document examiner check the apparent ‘validity of each document’ to determine it appears genuine. My understanding is that the words ‘on its/their face’ are simply intended to reinforce the fact that only what counts is appearance, not fact. (I assume, quite possibly erroneously, that these words are ‘inspired’ by S29(1) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 which refers to ‘a bill, complete and regular on the face of it’.)
Finally, I would imagine that the translation problem could remain. For instance, how would you translate ‘at face value’ into French? (Incidentally, looking –today- in the rather old English – French dictionary we have in the office, I notice ‘on the face of it’ is translated as ‘au premier aspect’ or ‘à première vue’. I wonder why the translator(s) did not go for one of these phrases.)
Anyone else any views regarding ‘on its/their face’?
[edited 9/17/2004 1:19:45 PM]
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
At the first time that I saw the expression 'on its/their face (and the translation in Turkish as '' on the front side of the doc.'', I was very confused and I was not able to understand what it meant.Shall I check just the front side of docs ? and It does not matter to the checker whatever exists on the back side of the doc.(Now I agree that this view is % 100 wrong)
My view, the wording 'on it's face' causes confusion and does not make any advantage for the checker and adds nothing beneficial to the UCP ,
Basicly , This wording suggests a checker is not intended to be an expert in discerning fraud from ( the face :)of the doc.that is checked. (But how many of people who are in the L/C transactions, get this idea ?)
As the UCP art 15 already says that banks has no liability or no responsibility on effectiveness, genuineness...... of docs., so there is no need to imply this such a confusing way which leads further misunderstandings.(Especially for the people who are not very familiar with the l/c transactions and the UCP.
Yahya,
[edited 10/7/2004 2:46:16 PM]
My view, the wording 'on it's face' causes confusion and does not make any advantage for the checker and adds nothing beneficial to the UCP ,
Basicly , This wording suggests a checker is not intended to be an expert in discerning fraud from ( the face :)of the doc.that is checked. (But how many of people who are in the L/C transactions, get this idea ?)
As the UCP art 15 already says that banks has no liability or no responsibility on effectiveness, genuineness...... of docs., so there is no need to imply this such a confusing way which leads further misunderstandings.(Especially for the people who are not very familiar with the l/c transactions and the UCP.
Yahya,
[edited 10/7/2004 2:46:16 PM]
IN YOUR FACE (OR 'FACE/OFF'?)
I rest my case.