Freight forwarders revisited

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:00 am

Kim,

and as for "document issued by FF not acceptable" I will stick to R562
Daniel

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:00 am

aka TA572

SvetlanaS · Post by **SvetlanaS** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:00 am

Surely if a freight forwarder goes through the process of taking a blank Carriers BL or AWB, then filled in the boxes, completed the document, printed the document, signed and dated the document.

Surely it is a clear reality that this freight forwarders has at that moment issued the transport document.

Svetlana

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:00 am

Svetlana,
Well, according to ISBP 22 and a new not yet approved query, it would be the carrier specified on the blank carrier's B/L, AWB. But I wonder now if par. 22 covers the transport documents?
Daniel

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:00 am

I can only repeat that there is not any reason why an entity cannot act as both freight forwarder and (contractual) carrier. Therefore, there is no conflict between an entity that appears to perform the role of freight forwarder, e.g. from its name or its stated membership of a freight forwarders’ organisation, signing a transport document as carrier. The fact that this entity might not own the ‘means of conveyance’ is neither here nor there.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:00 am

Jeremy,

I fully agree with you. But I just wonder if there could be or not the beginning of a confusion between the entity issuing a document and the entity signing a document.
Daniel

SvetlanaS · Post by **SvetlanaS** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:00 am

Thanks you.

I was not aware of paragraph 22 until now.

I can not know for sure but my feeling is that the drafters of this paragraph were not thinking about the peculiarities of transport documents when drafting paragraph 22.

This paragraph makes sense in my mind when I think of LC calling for a certificate of origin or packing list or analysis certificate issued by named party.. This paragraph make it easier for banks to accept these documents as issued by a certain party once on their headed paper which is good news.

However.

By applying this paragraph 22 literally then if an LC stated ‘Only Bill of Lading issued by Carrier is acceptable’ then a bill of lading typed up on standard Carrier BL form which I understand can be considered headed paper of Carrier bearing name of Agent and signed by the agent (often freight forwarder) in bottom right hand corner would be acceptable.

Even though in reality it was not in ‘real terms’ issued by the carrier but actually completed, filled in and then signed and issued by the agent.

Just because the transport document was completed by on blank form/headed paper of a carrier but executed and signed by another party it becomes issued by carrier on headed paper.

So the carrier becomes the issuer even though in reality the carrier may not even know the document is issued at that time.

This is interesting logic.

Thank you.