b/l endorsement

POLTERD. · Post by **POLTERD.** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:00 am

hi there ! need some help.
i'm arguing with an issuing bank:
a b/l issued to order of abc co.(not the shipper) , notified to xyz co.
and blank endorsed by abc co.
issuing bank sustain that the notify party (applicant) cannot get into possesion of goods because abc co. did not endorsed the b/l "to the order of xyz co.".
i believe the blank endorsement of abc co.is enough to transfer the title of goods and xyz co.,being in possesion of b/l ,can get the goods.
what is your opinion ?
the endorsement is made by stamp and signature of abc co.
thank you for your time.
bogdan.

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:00 am

Is the applicant in possession of the full set of bill of lading ?
Roland

POLTERD. · Post by **POLTERD.** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Roland,
applicant is still not in possesion of b/l.the full set is holded by issuing bank.
bogdan.

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:00 am

I have never faced such a problem. The way the B/L are endorsed is correct and the full set is available.
I can only imagine that this is a special regulation in this particular port or country
Roland

POLTERD. · Post by **POLTERD.** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:00 am

Thank you Roland.
Wish you a good day.
Bogdan

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:00 am

Bogdan,

Sorry if I am missing something, but surely what is relevant is the terms of the Credit?

If the Credit required the bills of lading to be endorsed to the order of XYZ Co. and they are not so endorsed then logically the BLs simply do not meet the terms of the Credit. The fact that XYZ Co can apparently still use the BLs to obtain delivery the goods is neither here nor there from a compliance perspective. Whereas if the Credit simply requires blank endorsed BLs then the issuing bank has no basis for refusal.

Regards, Jeremy