Pickup date and sign on the courier receipt

[KimChristensen]

Dear Roland,

To some extent I can follow your thinking; but under a documentary credit transaction, I can not help asking, if you are not "adding" requirements that are not part of the credit.

As Jeremy has stated, this document should be examined according to Article 21. The requirement in the credit mentionens a time frame - so this one should be there. When it comes to the signature, then I am not so sure: Please see ISBP paragraph 40. Can you say that the document "on its face requires a signature for its validity"?
I have not seen this document, but the courier receipts that I have seen does not.

If the intention were, that all requirements e.g. in article 29 were required, then the credit should have said so. Further: when the document requirement is constructed this way, then what is the purpose of the benni certificate, if the courier receipt is to certify exactly the same?

Best regards
Kim

[RolandLeupi]

Hi Kim,
The L/C requires a certificate issued by beneficiaries certifying that some documents have been sent to the applicant within a specific period of time. The fact that the beneficiaries certificate indicates exactly what requested under L/C conditions does not mean that the documents effectively have been sent withing 5 days of FCR date, reason why L/C additionaly requests the courier receipt as evidence.
The function of y courier receipt is to evidence that a shipment has been taken in charge, or will be made. So courier receipts are standard forms and indicates the sender, the receiver, a.s.o. Their data content is therefore known. The issuer of those documents are courier companies. I would therefore not regard such a document under art. 21.
Art. 29 does clearly specify how they have to be issued. The fact that art. 29 refers to goods does not change anything in my opinion. In other word if I send goods art 29 applies but if I am sending documents L/C should specify exactly what should be presented otherwise art. 21 would apply. Seems not logical at all. A shipment of goods or a shipment of documents is a shipment.
In addition to that postal receipts, courier receipts, a.s.o., a.s.o., always includes in the pre-stamped wording a pick-up day, or a date and a signature or visaeum. So even if not mentioned in the L/C it seems natural that such a document be signed and dated.
Roland

[NigelHolt]

Roland,

You are of course entitled to your views. Suffice it to say it is clear from its contents that sub-Article 29b only applies where it is the ‘transport document’ specified in the credit. Whether this is logical is neither here nor there, although I have no doubt it is perfectly logical.

Jeremy

[KimChristensen]

Dear Roland,
I must say that I do sympathise with your conclusion; although I do not fully agree. When it comes to your argumentation however, I have a harder time following your track.

First of all it seems to me that you “question” the value of the certificate issued by the beneficiary. Why do you do that? We are to examine documents on their face, and not “go behind” them to validate whether or not they reflect what really has taken place.

Secondly, the purpose of article 29 is clearly to be used when a courier receipt is used as a transport document (i.e. in line with article 23 – 28).

In my mind – the only (UCP) argument hat could be considered, is whether or not the courier receipt can be “compared” to a certificate or declaration, and thereby should be signed (as per ISBP paragraph 8). My personal view is that since it is titled “receipt”, then I think not. To my knowledge this has never been “tested” – but “consensus” in the Banking Commission may turn out either way.

Best regards
Kim

[larryBacon]

Since the LC calls for a courier receipt, clearly Art. 29 applies. Therefore a signature and date as per Art. 29 is a mandatory requirement.

The wording of Art. 29 b is slightly incorrect/misleading in that it refers to the document being issued by the courier. In practice, the document is issued by the sender and validated by the courier.
Therefore when I check such documents, I look for signatures of issuer and validator, in addition to date of receipt. Some may regard this as additional to UCP requirements, but the UCP should mirror standard practice, as its name suggests. In most cases, the AWB specifically states that the signature of the shipper is required (or words to that effect). Therefore, even if not specifically cited in UCP Art. 29 b, the signature is necessary to validate the document.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Laurence

Thanks for comments. As to the Article 29 discussion, I have nothing more to add.

I must however comment on your remark, that you would require a signature in the field “Signature of shipper or his agent” on an AWB. I would think that the purpose of ISBP paragraph 40 is exactly to avoid refusals based on this specific field not being completed. I accept that various wordings may apply from various airline companies – but I have never heard of one that requires the signature of the shipper for its VALIDITY.

The one that I have in hand – which I think is a common wording – goes as follows:

“Shipper certifies that the particulars on the face hereof are correct and that insofar as any part of the consignment contains dangerous goods, such part is properly described and is in proper condition for carriage by air according to the applicable Dangerous Goods Regulations”

So this is not related to the validity of the document as such – more to the issue of liability between shipper and airline.

Best regards
Kim

[larryBacon]

Dear Kim,

as an example, I have in front of me a copy of a DHL AWB. The box for signature of shipper is entitled "Shipper's agreement (Signature required)".
Long before ISBP I would have checked for a signature here, but ISBP par. 40 (last sentence) backs this up. The absence of a signature here would mean that a requirement of the carrier had not been met by the shipper and therefore the document is invalid.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Laurence,

Thanks for the example; I have been digging up a DHL AWB – and you are of course correct.

I do think however, that there is a distinction between a field being “required” – and the document not being “VALID” unless a specific field is completed.
I mean: If this field (shipper) is not completed, will that mean that the document is “null and void”, and that the carrier is not liable for its actions? I think not.

Actually – you have really got me working here, and I have checked the CMR Convention – just as an example.
Here you will note that the consignment note must be signed by the sender and the car-rier (Article 5,1). However “The absence, irregularity or loss of the consignment note shall not affect the existence or the VALIDITY of the contract of carriage” (article 4).

Best regards
Kim

[larryBacon]

Dear Kim,

I like the similarity you make to the CMR convention, but whether we look at CMR or a courier contract, in each case there must be a "consensus ad idem", typified by signatures from both parties. If there is no signature, there is no consensus and no (valid) contract. The document establishing such contract may or may not be required in a LC, but where there is a clear contractual requirement for a signature, I would regard it as mandatory for a valid presentation.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Laurence,

I accept your argument. I think however that this contradicts UCP 500 article 3, 13,a and 21 as well as ISBP paragraph 40.

Best regards
Kim