Dear Kim,
depending on the wording in the LC, there may be a requirement for a B/L complying with Art. 23 or Art. 26. Therefore, one must be able to distinguish a marine B/L from a MM B/L. If every part of the transit on a B/L is by sea, it can only be a marine B/L.
If the B/L indicates that some part/s of the transit does not go by sea, it must be a MM B/L. My interpretation is a "real world" interpretation, which may conflict with certain interpretations of the UCP, but this is one of the reasons why the UCP needs revision.
From sunny snowless Dublin !
Laurence
[edited 3/4/2005 1:40:14 PM]
Multimodal b/l presented i/o a Marine B/L
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Multimodal b/l presented i/o a Marine B/L
Dear Laurence
Fair enough.
I take it then, that you accept that your interpretation is not the prevailing one at this point in time (where we are still struggling with the “unfinished” UCP 500 – and eagerly awaiting the more-than-perfect-UCP 600 (however named))?
Have a nice weekend
Kim
Fair enough.
I take it then, that you accept that your interpretation is not the prevailing one at this point in time (where we are still struggling with the “unfinished” UCP 500 – and eagerly awaiting the more-than-perfect-UCP 600 (however named))?
Have a nice weekend
Kim
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Multimodal b/l presented i/o a Marine B/L
Dear Kim,
I accept that because of poor wording in the current UCP, more than one interpretation is possible. It is not for me to say that my interpretation is the correct one. I use it as my background in the export/import industry demands pragmatism over theory.
Laurence
I accept that because of poor wording in the current UCP, more than one interpretation is possible. It is not for me to say that my interpretation is the correct one. I use it as my background in the export/import industry demands pragmatism over theory.
Laurence
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Multimodal b/l presented i/o a Marine B/L
Dear Laurence,
Hmmm – although not my style, I should raise a warning finger here. I understand and accept that you want to discuss these things. So do I, but if you give professional “advise” in a specific case (like this one), I would suggest that you make a clear distinction between the prevailing “interpretation” (as reflected in UCP, ISBP and opinions), and your discussion whether or not this is the “correct” interpretation – or if changes to the UCP may be required.
That being said, I am not sure that agree with your “pragmatic angle”. I have been doing a bit of checking with the Danish Freight Forwarders Organisation – and the result were – to me at least – at bit surprising. I am not an expert in this, and this is a Danish view – so if you have other views / angles, it would be much appreciated.
First of all (and not that surprising) the multimodal transport document may be used for other forms of transport than sea.
Secondly (and more surprising) it is NOT a requirement that more than one mode of transport is physically utilized in carrying out the transport *)
This means i.e. that the document can be used for a transport from point A to point B by truck. So looking beyond the UCP, a multimodal transport document is defined by the form that is being used: If it is titled multimodal transport document, then that is exactly what it is!
So trying to conclude here, I guess that I would agree with you so far, as to say that the first 5 lines of article 26 has not been drafted in compliance with terms regulating the multimodal transport document (one versus many forms of transport).
Best regards
Kim
*) Standard Conditions (1992) governing the FIATA MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING – reads:
1 Applicability
Notwithstanding the heading "FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading (FBL)" these conditions shall also apply if only one mode of transport is used.
Hmmm – although not my style, I should raise a warning finger here. I understand and accept that you want to discuss these things. So do I, but if you give professional “advise” in a specific case (like this one), I would suggest that you make a clear distinction between the prevailing “interpretation” (as reflected in UCP, ISBP and opinions), and your discussion whether or not this is the “correct” interpretation – or if changes to the UCP may be required.
That being said, I am not sure that agree with your “pragmatic angle”. I have been doing a bit of checking with the Danish Freight Forwarders Organisation – and the result were – to me at least – at bit surprising. I am not an expert in this, and this is a Danish view – so if you have other views / angles, it would be much appreciated.
First of all (and not that surprising) the multimodal transport document may be used for other forms of transport than sea.
Secondly (and more surprising) it is NOT a requirement that more than one mode of transport is physically utilized in carrying out the transport *)
This means i.e. that the document can be used for a transport from point A to point B by truck. So looking beyond the UCP, a multimodal transport document is defined by the form that is being used: If it is titled multimodal transport document, then that is exactly what it is!
So trying to conclude here, I guess that I would agree with you so far, as to say that the first 5 lines of article 26 has not been drafted in compliance with terms regulating the multimodal transport document (one versus many forms of transport).
Best regards
Kim
*) Standard Conditions (1992) governing the FIATA MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT BILL OF LADING – reads:
1 Applicability
Notwithstanding the heading "FIATA Multimodal Transport Bill of Lading (FBL)" these conditions shall also apply if only one mode of transport is used.