Daniel,
Thanks. Thought as much; just surprised at the current butter set-up in the Helvetic Confederation; assumed it would be a free-market.
Anyway, revenons à nos moutons, I hope too we will not be disappointed by the commentary but I am not optimistic.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 1/9/2007 6:13:29 PM]
24(b)(iii)
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy,
I think you may say there are two types of l/cs :
those for which you can apply UCP
and those that need clarifications.
You'll never have only perfect l/cs entirely being covered by UCP/ISBP.
For some terms/conditions you will not find the proper article to apply and in such cases you will have to ask for clarifications. As long as you will receive them in due time it is ok.
I think both UCP and ISBP cover the all spectrum.
You'll always find a twisted mind asking for some Stephen King kind of. But UCP hasn't been written for such minds.
Regards,
Bogdan.
I think you may say there are two types of l/cs :
those for which you can apply UCP
and those that need clarifications.
You'll never have only perfect l/cs entirely being covered by UCP/ISBP.
For some terms/conditions you will not find the proper article to apply and in such cases you will have to ask for clarifications. As long as you will receive them in due time it is ok.
I think both UCP and ISBP cover the all spectrum.
You'll always find a twisted mind asking for some Stephen King kind of. But UCP hasn't been written for such minds.
Regards,
Bogdan.
24(b)(iii)
The commentary will be very helpful if:
-It is not just a comparison between 500/600
-It is not just a course about DCs
-It answers the real troublesome questions (we have seen some over the last weeks and we will see some more)
-The examples are the ones of the real live and not the ones of the ideal world
Daniel
-It is not just a comparison between 500/600
-It is not just a course about DCs
-It answers the real troublesome questions (we have seen some over the last weeks and we will see some more)
-The examples are the ones of the real live and not the ones of the ideal world
Daniel
24(b)(iii)
Re Jeremy's "...word duplicate automatically is an indication that a document is not an original per UCP600 17b" I think that a RWB indicating that it is a duplicate is to be considered as original since evidence an original railway company's stamp/signature.
I think that UCP600 17b "unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original" means that a RWB photocopy will not be accepted and doesn't making reference to docs like duplicate RWB.
Concerning CMR most of them aren't marked ORIGINAL but I accept them as original as long as are originally signed/stamped by the carrier/carrier's agent.
Concerning 500 versus 600, starting with July we shall have l/cs either subject to 500 or subject to 600 but in no way subject to both in the same time.
To compare one UCP with another is good but in practice we shall check the l/c's terms and conditions and the documents based only on one of the UCP.
Bogdan
I think that UCP600 17b "unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original" means that a RWB photocopy will not be accepted and doesn't making reference to docs like duplicate RWB.
Concerning CMR most of them aren't marked ORIGINAL but I accept them as original as long as are originally signed/stamped by the carrier/carrier's agent.
Concerning 500 versus 600, starting with July we shall have l/cs either subject to 500 or subject to 600 but in no way subject to both in the same time.
To compare one UCP with another is good but in practice we shall check the l/c's terms and conditions and the documents based only on one of the UCP.
Bogdan
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
24(b)(iii)
Dear all,
Just ”stumbled” over the following in UpSkill600 (comments to article 24), which may be of interest here:
Quote
… Similarly, it is stated in UCP 600 sub-article 24 (b)(ii) that a rail transport document may be marked ‘duplicate’ as opposed to ‘original’ and in UCP 600 sub-article 24 (b)(iii) a rail transport document will be accepted whether it is marked original or not (this latter principal also applies to inland waterway transport documents).
Unquote
So I guess that the intention is to say that it is acceptable that it is marked “duplicate” – as Daniel has said in a previous posting.
Best regards
Kim
Ps. Bogdan in your latest posting you write “signed/stamped”. How to interpret the “slash” mark: and? or? and/or?
Just ”stumbled” over the following in UpSkill600 (comments to article 24), which may be of interest here:
Quote
… Similarly, it is stated in UCP 600 sub-article 24 (b)(ii) that a rail transport document may be marked ‘duplicate’ as opposed to ‘original’ and in UCP 600 sub-article 24 (b)(iii) a rail transport document will be accepted whether it is marked original or not (this latter principal also applies to inland waterway transport documents).
Unquote
So I guess that the intention is to say that it is acceptable that it is marked “duplicate” – as Daniel has said in a previous posting.
Best regards
Kim
Ps. Bogdan in your latest posting you write “signed/stamped”. How to interpret the “slash” mark: and? or? and/or?
24(b)(iii)
Dear Kim
I met two kinds of CMR:
-being stamped and signed by carrier
-having the carrier's name+address preprinted and therefore being only signed by the carrier.
That is why I wrote signed/stamped.
(I never met a CMR signed by carrier's agent.Have anybody met such CMR ?)
.
I also agree with Daniel.
.
Best wishes,
Bogdan
I met two kinds of CMR:
-being stamped and signed by carrier
-having the carrier's name+address preprinted and therefore being only signed by the carrier.
That is why I wrote signed/stamped.
(I never met a CMR signed by carrier's agent.Have anybody met such CMR ?)
.
I also agree with Daniel.
.
Best wishes,
Bogdan
24(b)(iii)
Not by an agent, but I am pretty sure some are signed by the driver.
24(b)(iii)
Bogdan,
I cannot agree that ‘UCP600 17b "unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original" means that a RWB photocopy will not be accepted and doesn't making reference to docs like duplicate RWB’.
The words ‘unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original’ can only be taken as a reference to WORDS indicating that the document is not an original. This is because -to fall with 17b- the document WILL apparently bear an original signature, mark etc. Put another way, if a document is ‘wholly’ a photocopy it cannot possibly fall within 17b in the first place as it will -by definition- not bear an original signature, mark etc.
The ONLY logical conclusion for the apparent exemption accorded to the rail transport document by 24(b)(ii) is that the word ‘duplicate’ is automatically an indication that a document is not an original. The words themselves, ‘A rail transport document marked as ‘duplicate’ WILL BE ACCEPTED AS AN ORIGINAL’ [my emphasis] cannot point to any other conclusion. If this were not the case there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to cover the matter in UCP600. (It would be wholly absurd to suggest that 24(b)(ii) exists simply to cover the possibility of a banker not actually understanding Article 17 and possibly -as a result- refusing a rail transport document merely by reason of it being marked ‘duplicate’.)
Jeremy
[edited 1/25/2007 10:49:10 AM]
I cannot agree that ‘UCP600 17b "unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original" means that a RWB photocopy will not be accepted and doesn't making reference to docs like duplicate RWB’.
The words ‘unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original’ can only be taken as a reference to WORDS indicating that the document is not an original. This is because -to fall with 17b- the document WILL apparently bear an original signature, mark etc. Put another way, if a document is ‘wholly’ a photocopy it cannot possibly fall within 17b in the first place as it will -by definition- not bear an original signature, mark etc.
The ONLY logical conclusion for the apparent exemption accorded to the rail transport document by 24(b)(ii) is that the word ‘duplicate’ is automatically an indication that a document is not an original. The words themselves, ‘A rail transport document marked as ‘duplicate’ WILL BE ACCEPTED AS AN ORIGINAL’ [my emphasis] cannot point to any other conclusion. If this were not the case there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to cover the matter in UCP600. (It would be wholly absurd to suggest that 24(b)(ii) exists simply to cover the possibility of a banker not actually understanding Article 17 and possibly -as a result- refusing a rail transport document merely by reason of it being marked ‘duplicate’.)
Jeremy
[edited 1/25/2007 10:49:10 AM]
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy,
You're right regarding 600's art.17
(my mistake !).
I observed (since last month) that the railway bills are no longer marked "duplicate".
Have you noticed that too ?
Bogdan
You're right regarding 600's art.17
(my mistake !).
I observed (since last month) that the railway bills are no longer marked "duplicate".
Have you noticed that too ?
Bogdan
24(b)(iii)
On the UCP meaning of "duplicate", I note the following.
The "Originals" decision, which was adapted from an opinion letter that I researched and wrote for the IFSA, includes the following sentence under the heading of "Statements indicating originality":
A statement in a document that it is a "duplicate original" or the "third of three" also indicates that it is original.
There is no other reference to "duplicate" in the decision. In particular, the section on "What is not an 'Original'?", does not equate "duplicate" with "copy" or otherwise refer to "duplicate".
So, "duplicate" means "twin", and twins can be either originals or copies. The word "duplicate" does not signify copy.
Regards, Jim Barnes
The "Originals" decision, which was adapted from an opinion letter that I researched and wrote for the IFSA, includes the following sentence under the heading of "Statements indicating originality":
A statement in a document that it is a "duplicate original" or the "third of three" also indicates that it is original.
There is no other reference to "duplicate" in the decision. In particular, the section on "What is not an 'Original'?", does not equate "duplicate" with "copy" or otherwise refer to "duplicate".
So, "duplicate" means "twin", and twins can be either originals or copies. The word "duplicate" does not signify copy.
Regards, Jim Barnes