Jeremy and Kim,
I forgot to consult "Up Skill 600" It seems that the "official" answer is in it. "What's changed" art. 17.
Have you got it?
17(e)
17(e)
Jeremy,
You haven't got Up Skill 600, a prudent banker... Well, never mind! -). In the comments of article 17, they give the example of a packing list manually signed and photocopied to create a copy. It is acceptable. They go on to remember us that a photocopy is a copy. Therefore, my opinion in that within the scope of UCP 600, a copy needs not be originally signed, respectively needs not be signed. If I am wrong, my excuse is: it is getting late.
You haven't got Up Skill 600, a prudent banker... Well, never mind! -). In the comments of article 17, they give the example of a packing list manually signed and photocopied to create a copy. It is acceptable. They go on to remember us that a photocopy is a copy. Therefore, my opinion in that within the scope of UCP 600, a copy needs not be originally signed, respectively needs not be signed. If I am wrong, my excuse is: it is getting late.
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
17(e)
Dear Jeremy and Daniel,
Good morning and apologize for being a nuisance … I can not help it
Jeremy; I know that 20 (c) has been removed – but I am not sure this proves anything.
First of all this is the default rule – and in this case you could argue that this rule has been “modified” by the wording in the LC.
Still I believe that in your example the copies should not be signed – and actually I do not think that the omission of 20 (c) reflects a real change – because all of this comes from a line in the LC.
In addition to that I would use more or less the same argument as you – saying that regardless of what “was” in the UCP 500 the “UCP 600 should stand on its own”, and in that respect I still do not think that the answer lies in the UCP.
Daniel, I know that it is 4 examples with only one “unclear” – but that is exactly my point”!
As for the “UpSkill600 versus prudent banker” … is it any excuse that I ordered mine 3 hours prior to you mentioning it here??
I am not sure that I follow you exactly, not having seen the comments to article 17 (have not received access code) – but again I would think that what is reflected here is the default rule – and if that one is modified by the LC then the result would be different (perhaps
Best regards
Kim
Good morning and apologize for being a nuisance … I can not help it
Jeremy; I know that 20 (c) has been removed – but I am not sure this proves anything.
First of all this is the default rule – and in this case you could argue that this rule has been “modified” by the wording in the LC.
Still I believe that in your example the copies should not be signed – and actually I do not think that the omission of 20 (c) reflects a real change – because all of this comes from a line in the LC.
In addition to that I would use more or less the same argument as you – saying that regardless of what “was” in the UCP 500 the “UCP 600 should stand on its own”, and in that respect I still do not think that the answer lies in the UCP.
Daniel, I know that it is 4 examples with only one “unclear” – but that is exactly my point”!
As for the “UpSkill600 versus prudent banker” … is it any excuse that I ordered mine 3 hours prior to you mentioning it here??
I am not sure that I follow you exactly, not having seen the comments to article 17 (have not received access code) – but again I would think that what is reflected here is the default rule – and if that one is modified by the LC then the result would be different (perhaps
Best regards
Kim
17(e)
I agree that the default rule suggests that copy(s) need not be signed, unless the credit modifies it explicitly to suggest otherwise. I wonder if we can compare this to presentation of original & n.n. BLS, I have never come across any bank objecting to the n.n. BLS not being signed. I guess the simple reason being, no one expects a copy to be signed.
Regards, Khalid
Regards, Khalid
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
17(e)
Dear Khalid,
So well put! And I must say that I was utterly surprised when the issue was addressed at the UCP 600 seminar 26 October.
Best regards
Kim
So well put! And I must say that I was utterly surprised when the issue was addressed at the UCP 600 seminar 26 October.
Best regards
Kim
17(e)
Dear all,
So we all agree whatever our motives, let us hope that we will be proven right
Daniel
So we all agree whatever our motives, let us hope that we will be proven right
Daniel
17(e)
Dear all,
We're checkers from all over the world, some knowing English very well, some more or little less. That is one of the reasons we give different interpretations to same wording.
For me, an l/c asking for "signed invoice in 6 copies' means that all 6 invoices must be signed.And not because I don't properly understand UCP500/UCP600 provisions but for the reason I wonder myself if isn't this what issuing bank asked in fact for.
The problem can be easy solved by asking issuing bank to clarify.
Furthermore, I always keep in mind the UCP500 wording "unless otherwise stipulated in the credit" and UCP600's art.1 "they are binding...by the credit". What if "signed invoice in 6 copies" is and "expressly" modification made by issuing bank to UCP ?
I might be wrong but I think that even when you have only 2% doubts is better to ask for clarifications because in the end you may find out you weren't right.
Best regards,
Bogdan
We're checkers from all over the world, some knowing English very well, some more or little less. That is one of the reasons we give different interpretations to same wording.
For me, an l/c asking for "signed invoice in 6 copies' means that all 6 invoices must be signed.And not because I don't properly understand UCP500/UCP600 provisions but for the reason I wonder myself if isn't this what issuing bank asked in fact for.
The problem can be easy solved by asking issuing bank to clarify.
Furthermore, I always keep in mind the UCP500 wording "unless otherwise stipulated in the credit" and UCP600's art.1 "they are binding...by the credit". What if "signed invoice in 6 copies" is and "expressly" modification made by issuing bank to UCP ?
I might be wrong but I think that even when you have only 2% doubts is better to ask for clarifications because in the end you may find out you weren't right.
Best regards,
Bogdan
17(e)
That is very true, another solution would be to request the issuer to sign the six copies and therefore to present 6 originals. But then, what would become of our nice discussion?
Daniel
Daniel