Vincent,
A rare honour indeed! Hope you’re keeping well.
I’m on holiday for the next two weeks, so something <quick and dirty>:
I wholeheartedly agree that the UCP does not require that documents be consistent; but rather, that they not be inconsistent. However, I do not accept that it is for bankers to apply the line of reasoning you outline for holding there is not any inconsistency. Determining lack of inconsistency I believe effectively requires a line-by-line cross verification (with ‘reasonable care’) of all information appearing in one document with all information appearing in each and every other document so as to ensure there is not any information -whether or not called for in the credit or the UCP and whether or not of any apparent adverse impact on the applicant or banks- that is not inconsistent from one document to another.
However, I’ve not done extensive research on the subject, legal cases, reference works etc, although my impression is there are not any ICC opinions at least that support either of our positions. At the risk of falling foul of your ‘ongoing dialog’ position, are you aware of anything ‘in writing’ that supports your position?
Best regards, Jeremy
[edited 6/25/2004 9:46:11 PM]
Is there any inconsistency ?
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Is there any inconsistency ?
Since the ins cert stated that it was issued prior to the (actual) shipment date, any statement on the ins cert relating to the shipment date could be nothing other than an estimation. Therefore there is no discrepancy.
A further check with the shipping line may be able to determine that the planned shipment date as at 7.5.2004 was 12.5.2004. Again this establishes that the ins cert is consistent with the B/L.
No indication is given as to location of the issuer of either B/L or ins cert. If they are in different time zones, a difference of one day is not inconsistent.
Laurence
A further check with the shipping line may be able to determine that the planned shipment date as at 7.5.2004 was 12.5.2004. Again this establishes that the ins cert is consistent with the B/L.
No indication is given as to location of the issuer of either B/L or ins cert. If they are in different time zones, a difference of one day is not inconsistent.
Laurence
Is there any inconsistency ?
Having returned from holiday I cannot see I would want to make any substantive changes to my last posting. I would further observe that:
1. the wording of sub-Article 13a does not limit in any way the requirement that documents must not be inconsistent, except that <<only>> reasonable care is required to establish if documents are inconsistent. E.g. it does not say that where the inconsistency relates to information in a document that the UCP or the credit does not require to be shown it may be ignored.
2. the more <<discretion>> or judgement required of document examiners the more expensive (as it requires higher paid or better trained staff) and risky document examination comes for banks.
3. its seems to me odd that it should be suggested that the particular problem mentioned in the first posting could be resolved by ' phoning the document issuer when, per sub-Article 13a, banks are to required -and thus allowed- to examine only the appearance of documents.
Finally, I ultimately do not care what is the correct answer, provided it is clear, comprehensive and easy to apply (e.g. by a non-CDCS qualified teenager that left school at 16 with <<average>> academic qualifications).
[edited 7/13/2004 12:05:12 PM]
1. the wording of sub-Article 13a does not limit in any way the requirement that documents must not be inconsistent, except that <<only>> reasonable care is required to establish if documents are inconsistent. E.g. it does not say that where the inconsistency relates to information in a document that the UCP or the credit does not require to be shown it may be ignored.
2. the more <<discretion>> or judgement required of document examiners the more expensive (as it requires higher paid or better trained staff) and risky document examination comes for banks.
3. its seems to me odd that it should be suggested that the particular problem mentioned in the first posting could be resolved by ' phoning the document issuer when, per sub-Article 13a, banks are to required -and thus allowed- to examine only the appearance of documents.
Finally, I ultimately do not care what is the correct answer, provided it is clear, comprehensive and easy to apply (e.g. by a non-CDCS qualified teenager that left school at 16 with <<average>> academic qualifications).
[edited 7/13/2004 12:05:12 PM]
Is there any inconsistency ?
I am glad to see - after my a bit long absence from the Forum due to my working occupation - that we have some new interesting topics.
First of all I strongly believe that the documentary checker is not supposed to do extensive research on the subject, legal cases, reference works etc. to make his decision re. the documents. His decision must be pretty quick and based on his experience and knowledge in line with international standard banking practice. The documentary checker is not supposed to be expert in shipping or insurance industry.
Also in my view the issue of "inconsistency" is very important and unfortunately it is obvious that it is not universally understood. Yes indeed the UCP500 do not expressly state that documents be consistent; but rather that they not be inconsistent. One might well argue that this does not obviously mean "or is meant to mean the same". However to find the clear cut between meaning of "documents not be inconsistent with one another" and "documents to be consistent with one another" might not be so easy for normal L/C practitioner whose mother tongue is not English and does not enjoy high level university education and plenty of time as many consultants, judges etc. Would the native speakers explain the distinction to other nationalities, please? I believe that in most languages of the world the translations of "consistent" and "not inconsistent" mean perfectly the same (you may see a very similar logic in mathematics). This is, of course, not to say that "consistent or not inconsistent" should be understood as a requirement for the document to be showing the same data or identical!
In my opinion the issue is not really the difference between meanings of expressions "documents to be consistent with one another" and "documents not to be inconsistent with one another", if any, but rather what makes the documents to be consistent with one another (or not to be inconsistent with one another). To what extent the documentary checker is supposed to examine the data of the presented required documents under L/C for consistency (or inconsistency – however you prefer to call it).
Not having seen the documents in question I am not prpared to voice my "decisive" opinion re. their compliance. However I am pretty sure from my practice that the majority of banks would consider the difference between data in B/L and insurance document related to date of shipment as described above as discrepancy. Therefore I very much support Mr. Umar in his practical approach to the problem.
With regards to all,
Pavel Andrle
[edited 7/13/2004 2:28:05 PM]
First of all I strongly believe that the documentary checker is not supposed to do extensive research on the subject, legal cases, reference works etc. to make his decision re. the documents. His decision must be pretty quick and based on his experience and knowledge in line with international standard banking practice. The documentary checker is not supposed to be expert in shipping or insurance industry.
Also in my view the issue of "inconsistency" is very important and unfortunately it is obvious that it is not universally understood. Yes indeed the UCP500 do not expressly state that documents be consistent; but rather that they not be inconsistent. One might well argue that this does not obviously mean "or is meant to mean the same". However to find the clear cut between meaning of "documents not be inconsistent with one another" and "documents to be consistent with one another" might not be so easy for normal L/C practitioner whose mother tongue is not English and does not enjoy high level university education and plenty of time as many consultants, judges etc. Would the native speakers explain the distinction to other nationalities, please? I believe that in most languages of the world the translations of "consistent" and "not inconsistent" mean perfectly the same (you may see a very similar logic in mathematics). This is, of course, not to say that "consistent or not inconsistent" should be understood as a requirement for the document to be showing the same data or identical!
In my opinion the issue is not really the difference between meanings of expressions "documents to be consistent with one another" and "documents not to be inconsistent with one another", if any, but rather what makes the documents to be consistent with one another (or not to be inconsistent with one another). To what extent the documentary checker is supposed to examine the data of the presented required documents under L/C for consistency (or inconsistency – however you prefer to call it).
Not having seen the documents in question I am not prpared to voice my "decisive" opinion re. their compliance. However I am pretty sure from my practice that the majority of banks would consider the difference between data in B/L and insurance document related to date of shipment as described above as discrepancy. Therefore I very much support Mr. Umar in his practical approach to the problem.
With regards to all,
Pavel Andrle
[edited 7/13/2004 2:28:05 PM]
Is there any inconsistency ?
Gents,
I think Opinion R251 may be of some relevance here.
regards
Khalid
I think Opinion R251 may be of some relevance here.
regards
Khalid
Is there any inconsistency ?
Khalid,
I can well understand your referring to R251. Unfortunately, it illustrates what I personally consider to be the poor quality of opinions that emanates from the so called Banking Commission. In reply to the question <What are the meanings of 'compliance' and 'consistency' under UCP 500?>, with respect to consistency the reply should have been that the UCP does not refer to ‘consistency’ but ‘inconsistency’ and that inconsistency generally occurs when information in one document is contradicted by information in another document (or within the same document; regrettably ‘internal inconsistency’ is not covered by the UCP). Unfortunately, this opinion could give the impression that the <same> information in different documents must be literally the same. However, as for example- para 37 of ISBP recognises, this is not the case. To me para 37 nicely illustrates the difference between requiring documents to be consistent and requiring documents to be not inconsistent.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 7/23/2004 10:39:11 AM]
I can well understand your referring to R251. Unfortunately, it illustrates what I personally consider to be the poor quality of opinions that emanates from the so called Banking Commission. In reply to the question <What are the meanings of 'compliance' and 'consistency' under UCP 500?>, with respect to consistency the reply should have been that the UCP does not refer to ‘consistency’ but ‘inconsistency’ and that inconsistency generally occurs when information in one document is contradicted by information in another document (or within the same document; regrettably ‘internal inconsistency’ is not covered by the UCP). Unfortunately, this opinion could give the impression that the <same> information in different documents must be literally the same. However, as for example- para 37 of ISBP recognises, this is not the case. To me para 37 nicely illustrates the difference between requiring documents to be consistent and requiring documents to be not inconsistent.
Regards, Jeremy
[edited 7/23/2004 10:39:11 AM]
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Is there any inconsistency ?
In response to Pavel's question, and in the absence of a response from native English speakers, the distinction I make between consistent & not inconsistent is best illustrated by referring to terminology with which you are already very familiar :
LC condition that B/L does not indicate loading of goods on deck -
B/L indicating goods not loaded on deck is consistent.
B/L indicating goods loaded on deck is inconsistent.
B/L indicating that goods may be loaded on deck is not inconsistent.
I trust that English not being my native language is not inconsistent with answering this question.
Laurence
LC condition that B/L does not indicate loading of goods on deck -
B/L indicating goods not loaded on deck is consistent.
B/L indicating goods loaded on deck is inconsistent.
B/L indicating that goods may be loaded on deck is not inconsistent.
I trust that English not being my native language is not inconsistent with answering this question.
Laurence