Article 28 and exclusions

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:00 am

Dear Daniel,

I see your point exactly. It seems to me though – that you are over interpreting these provisions. I feel confident that the drafters never though as deep about this as you do now.

Bear in mind that 28(g) and 28(h) have been “transferred” from UCP 500 with only linguistic changes (most likely because no one saw a need to change it – as it did not seem to cause problems) – while 28(i) is brand new trying to solve the trouble that came out of ISBP (2003) § 186.

In addition there are many examples in the UCP 600 of provisions that are clearly superfluous – but in there to make a point – like 14(k) and 14(l) not to mention 24(b)(ii) and (iii) perhaps adding 28(b) (as already covered in general terms by ISBP § 29) and ending with article 39.

Best regards
Kim

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:00 am

I'm with you all the way Kim.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:00 am

Kim,

So be it, however....
Regards
Daniel