Correction on DHL receipt

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:00 am

As I mentioned, I was sure that my response would draw discussion. However, the simple fact remains that DHL does not complete their AWB's in the same manner as airline carriers generally do. UCP provides separate articles for Airline couriers AWB's versus the DHL AWB type which, as we know, are more commonly referred to as a courier receipt. The fact that a shipper completes a courier receipt is common knowledge especially for those processing LC business as, they themselves must complete courier receipts in order to mail documents onwards.
DHL and other courier companies agree to deliver to the address completed by the shipper (provided they are able to do so) where an airline co. typically completes an AWB and delivers to a specific airport.
In my opinion, it is unreasonable and possibly illegal to expect DHL or any courier company to initial a correction that they themselves have not made.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:00 am

But Glen, is not the case that the beneficiary also normally completes -for example- a C/O prior to its signing by a CoC and that -where they have open cover-they complete the insurance document from a pad of 'facsimile' signed forms that they have? Using your reasoning these documents would presumably not require alterations to be authenticated by the CoC / insurance co either?

Regards, Jeremy

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Sat Oct 24, 2009 1:00 am

Hi Jeremy,
I actual received a few calls on this discussion and they raised issues similar to your last comments. As I explained to them, if a DHL AWB is completed by the shipper/bene. and DHL does not pick up the package for delivery, would you consider that the AWB is still issued by DHL? I believe that your answer would hold true for other documents completed by a third party and not acknowledged/signed by the party whose letterhead the document bears.
I believe that DHL and, in general, any courier receipt is completed by the shipper/bene. The courier/carrier, if it chooses to enter into the transaction, will sign the AWB thereby “acknowledging” it and agreeing to deliver the package. Does DHL's signature make them the document issuer? I am not so sure however, we both agree that the document should not be refused and I would rather argue in a court of law that I paid a complying presentation rather than refuse payment for such a silly discrepancy.
I guess it is too bad that opinion TA644rev did not cover courier receipts. However, I did take some exception to the C/O portion of that opinion in that it appears from the opinion that the bene and chamber were joint issuers of a C/O and, as such, both needed to authenticate a correction. Perhaps that same logic should be applied in this case but I would not like to see that happen.
In any case, it does make for an interesting discussion.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 am

Glenn,

644?

Daniel

GlennRansier_ · Post by **GlennRansier_** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 am

Sorry, I was referring to opinion TA664rev.

DanielD · Post by **DanielD** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:00 am

Yes, I thought so but 664 refer to an invoice legalized, therefore not exactly the case at issue or have I missed something?
Regards
Daniel