misspellings and/or typing errors in the beneficiary's/appli
Posted: Thu Jan 23, 2003 12:00 am
Mr. Simon (I assume this is your surname),
I share your views entirely.
Opinion R470 states:
‘…… sub-Article 37(a) does not impose a specific requirement for the address of the applicant to appear. This sub-Article refers to the invoice being issued in the name of the applicant.’
Opinion R474 states:
‘There is no specific requirement in the …… UCP for the address appearing in the credit to be that shown on individual documents.’
This opinion rightly goes onto say that a document bearing a beneficiary address in a DIFFERENT country is compliant, u.o.s. in the credit.
Overall, I regard ISBP a being singularly disappointing regarding this, and I regret to say, many other matters. Rather than reducing the scope for inter-bank dispute, I believe it has potentially increased it in a number of areas, in this particular instance by possibly implying addresses must automatically appear and be those quoted in the credit.
Jeremy
[edited 1/23/03 2:45:52 PM]
I share your views entirely.
Opinion R470 states:
‘…… sub-Article 37(a) does not impose a specific requirement for the address of the applicant to appear. This sub-Article refers to the invoice being issued in the name of the applicant.’
Opinion R474 states:
‘There is no specific requirement in the …… UCP for the address appearing in the credit to be that shown on individual documents.’
This opinion rightly goes onto say that a document bearing a beneficiary address in a DIFFERENT country is compliant, u.o.s. in the credit.
Overall, I regard ISBP a being singularly disappointing regarding this, and I regret to say, many other matters. Rather than reducing the scope for inter-bank dispute, I believe it has potentially increased it in a number of areas, in this particular instance by possibly implying addresses must automatically appear and be those quoted in the credit.
Jeremy
[edited 1/23/03 2:45:52 PM]