Signing of B/L

JavedAlim · Post by **JavedAlim** » Sun May 22, 2005 1:00 am

What I understand from article 23 of UCP 500 that those who signed the B/L must show their capacity.
Now I have a case of B/L where Carrier name written on top of the B/L and B/L signed as - Quote:
ABC & Co. signed as agents for the Carrier. Unquote. as per my understanding the B/L has been signed correctly and there is no discrepancy.
Waiting for comments...Thanks..
[edited 5/22/2005 11:06:03 AM]

Lionel · Post by **Lionel** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:00 am

The BL is not in compliance to UCP 500 Art. 23 because the name stated in the BL does not means that they are the carrier unless clearly indicated e.g. XYZ Line as Carrier or Carrier : XYX Line

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Lionel,

I am not sure that I agree with you on this one. I will accept that the posting from Javed might be open to interpretation. However if the word carrier is used in front of the document to identify the carrier – then I do not see the problem.

Please see ICC Position paper 4; I think that scenario 3,b covers this.

Link is:

http://focus.dcprofessional.com/DCpro-L ... ator=8.1.1

Best regards
Kim

AlbertB · Post by **AlbertB** » Mon May 23, 2005 1:00 am

Dear All:

There is some confusion to the questions.

1) If the B/L indicates "K" Lines ONLY (assuming "K" Lines is a Carrier). It is discrepent.

2) If the B/L indicates "K" Lines as Carier or Carrier: "K" Lines. It is acceptable.

Regards,
Albert

Yahya · Post by **Yahya** » Tue May 24, 2005 1:00 am

I agree with Albert and Kim.
The fact that a shipping company name may appear within the body of the text (anywhere on B/L ) does not meet the requirements of UCP in the identification of the carrier.As Kim pointed out that if The shipping co XYZ is identified to be as"the carrier" on B/L than the signature "ABC & Co. as agents for the carrier is acceptable.

Yahya,

JuergenHoltij · Post by **JuergenHoltij** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:00 am

Am in agreement with opinion expressed by Kim, when referring to ICC position paper no. 4. Please also refer to query TA 540 from June 2003 where it is stated in the conclusion, that "in order for a bill of lading to comply with UCP500 Article 23 in all cases, the name of the carrier must appear on the face thereof and be identified as such."

At the end of the conclusion it has been mentioned that the ICC position paper has been superceded by respective opinion.

This is just my personal opinion expressed in this discussion forum. Any reference to it or other purposes need my prior consent in writing.

Best regards
Juergen

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:00 am

Dear Juergen,

Thanks for reminding about TA.540; actually quite important when quoting/discussing Position Paper 4.

Best regards
Kim