ICC Digital Library Forum

Hi again;

Please also see the article "The delivery clause on B/Ls" by T.O. Lee on DCInsight Vol. 14 No.4 October - December 2008.

Regards.

Sub-Article 20(a) states:

“a . A bill of lading, however named, must appear to:
……
v. contain terms and conditions of carriage or make reference to another source containing the terms and conditions of carriage (short form or blank back bill of lading). CONTENTS OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE WILL NOT BE EXAMINED” [capitals added]

What is under discussion here is terms and conditions of carriage.

Also, with which term of the credit in question or UCP could the BL condition being discusedd here be considered inconsistent? On the face of it, there is not one.

Overall, banks have absolutely no basis under the UCP for refusing a BL that suggests an original does not have to be presented in order to obtain delivery of the goods.



[edited 8/13/2011 10:40:51 AM]

"Confirming bank's argument is, that "only" if the carrier requires, an Original Bill of Lading must be surrendered, "if not, a copy may be acceptable" "

I just love the way some banks decide for themselves the meaning of what's not said.

The BL doesn't say a copy may be acceptable, so how did they come to that conclusion. They may as well say "if not, an Air Waybill must be presented". As far as I am concerned they are equally ridiculous assumptions.

UCP does not disqualify this wording, the ICC have made an opinion on exactly this issue (thank you to Zeynap for the reference) and the BL is not discrepant - at least not for this reason.

Presumably this is the same German bank that refused my invoice because I stated the quantity as "15,625.000mt" whereas the LC stated "15,625.00mt" (and even after exhaustive arguments refused to change their stance, but gracefully agreed to negotiate under reserve). I refused to send a revised invoice out of principal.