In the legal context I would have no idea of what the conclusions may be and in many developing countries where LC’s business is growing rapidly they do not have any law dealing with such an issue of signing or authentication.
So in these countries bank checkers must rely on the rules and I suppose that is why we have such rules.
For Bank document checkers under the UCP 600 rules Article 3 seems to me to provide a broad range of options which would satisfy the requirement for a document to be signed.
“A document may be signed by handwriting, facsimile signature, perforated signature, stamp, symbol or any other mechanical or electronic method of authentication”
It would seem clear to me now that a company stamp/chop with the company name on the stamp/chop would satisfy the requirement for the document to be signed by that company under UCP 600.
When I re-read the above I felt that I sound quite confident about this – but in fact I am not, but only trying to state my current interpretation of UCP 600 article 3 more clearly.
Svetlana
insurance document not VALID unless signed
insurance document not VALID unless signed
Thanks for your thoughts, Svetlana. I like your point regarding developing countries.