discrepancy or not

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:00 am

I can certainly see the logic of strictly applying sub-Article 14(g), as if one allows an exception it then becomes unclear as to where to draw the line, and therefore would not seek to argue against doing so in this particular situation.

One benefit I have found of ‘putting my neck on the block’ in discussion fora is that even when it turns out –from someone else’s posting- I have omitted to take something into consideration, I am better prepared should I face a similar situation in the future. (And I am in the fortunate position where I will not need to worry about such matters for much longer.)

GlennRansier · Post by **GlennRansier** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:00 am

Well Jeremy, I can only be jealous. It will be a sad day for international trade when you do decide to happily retire

jsheehan · Post by **jsheehan** » Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:00 am

ok so back to my point. If I'm reading all this correctly, the "additional document" if called an addendum to BL no....would be acceptable.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:00 am

What I will call the 'correcting page' must appear to form part of the BL itself. An appropriately headed addendum attached to the BL would achieve this.

And thanks Glenn. Less than 6 months to go now.

[edited 3/6/2014 11:16:40 AM]

GlennRansier · Post by **GlennRansier** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 12:00 am

Yes John. However, please note that if you have 3 original BL's the attachment must also be in 3 originals.