ICC Digital Library Forum

At the risk of being drummed out of
DC-Pro by further lowering the tone of discussion, in my Paribas days we used to have a juvenile chuckle whenever we had to issue a letter of credit requiring a telex from the Master evidencing completion of discharge.

(For sensitive souls I would like to clarify that the above document is common in oil transactions!)

Frankie Howard

Philip,

Your interesting input inspires me to write a book named "The Funny Side of Letter of Credit Operations" after my retirement, about three years after the launch of UCP 500 2.0 or UCP X00. This book may not be suitable to be published under the ICC banner because of its content. And your story will be quoted.

May I have the permission from you and the DC Pro and of course the source of this story will be quoted?

In my consultancy career for the past many years, I do have many interesting stories to tell. As I said, anything could happen, whether it appears to be possible or not.

To give members a preview, here is one short story concerning chuckle and FOB.

When I explained “FOB” in Incoterms 1990, the male attendees in the in-house workshop all chuckled. In the coffee break I found out that in this particular company this Incoterm was used to express a staff member’s ill feelings when his boss was asking him to do something unreasonable. Of course I could not mention this accidental discovery in my Speaker’s Report as required by the its Personnel Department that hired me.

T. O.
www.tolee.com

[edited 11/10/02 5:03:37 PM]

Philip,

one aspect seems to be overlooked here - packaging.

If a kit of wooden shelves were packed in a carton and shipped, the b/l would show "apparent good order & condition". If the same pieces of wood were strapped together and shipped without further packaging, the issuer of the b/l should take the view that the wood, being exposed to ordinary heat and humidity, plus the type of damages which one might reasonably expect from ordinary handling of the goods, although appearing on the surface to be unblemished, may be marked, stained scratched etc. In those circumstances, it is prudent of the issuer of the b/l to qualify the issue of the b/l in this way. One might regard such a clause as saying that the goods may be subject to "ordinary wear & tear". The fact that they may be subject to ordinary wear & tear does not indicate that they have been and therefore the b/l should be acceptable under the UCP.

Laurence

Laurence, a b/l is evidence that goods are ok 'when received'. If damaged, one would expect the b/l to bear a suitable clause (except with the type of b/l mentioned above). Damage to the goods whilst in transit is another matter and, I presume, would be subject to an insurance claim after being assessed at disport.

Philip

Philip,

the usual phrase used is "received in apparent good order and condition". The word apparent is crucial here. In terms similar to those used in DCs we might describe this as appearing at face value to be in compliance with the description offered by the shipper to the carrier. The DC similarity can be continued in that the carrier protects himself by inserting the word "apparent". I regard this as similar to the protection afforded the banks under Article 15 of UCP.

Laurence