Pickup date and sign on the courier receipt

[larryBacon]

Dear Kim,

I do not intend to imply contradiction of Art. 3, but merely to demonstrate that a courier AWB is evidence of a contract and standard practice at least requires a signature, even if that requirement is not detailed on the document itself. There are specific or implied contracts in the issue of B/E, B/L or Chamber of Commerce C/O. You would expect to see these signed and should reject if not. The same applies to courier AWB.

Art. 13 a calls for reasonable care in examining documents. I suggest that any document presented under a LC which contains a statement like "signature required", should be checked by the bank for such signature. To fail to do so, fails the reasonable care test.

If you accept that Art. 29 applies here, then Art. 21 does not apply.

Please re-read the last sentence of par. 40 of ISBP, which applies here.

Laurence

[KimChristensen]

Dear Laurence,

Now I think that we can not squeeze much more out of this string.

For the sake of good order, I must clarify a few things based on your latest posting.

As to the signatures, there are two issues here that have been discussed:

One is whether or not the Courier receipt should be signed by the carrier (i.e. whether or not article 29 applies for this document). For my part this discussion ended via my June 7 posting. So I still do not accept that article 29 applies here.

The other one (related to my June 8 posting / the second one) is whether or not a field e.g. required to be signed by the shipper should be completed.
So just to clarify:

I think that you are out of line with:

* article 3 in considering e.g. whether or not there exist a valid contract between shipper and carrier.

* article 13,a in the sense that documents should be examined “on their face”, which means … hell I do not know what that means, but one thing I am sure of, is that you should not “go behind” the documents and require proof that a valid contract of carriage exists.

* Article 21 in the sense that you make requirements to the documents (e.g. shippers signature) that are not in the articles nor in the credit.

* Paragraph 40 as your posting June 7 (in my mind) shows the very scenario that the paragraph tries to avoid: refusals based on missing signatures in e.g. the field “Signature by shipper or its agents” on an AWB.

Now; I do not expect that we will come to an agreement here – and I can live with that so the purpose of this posting is alone to summarize my views on this.

Best regards
Kim

[larryBacon]

Dear Kim,

you are right in saying that we will not agree, so we will agree to differ !

I am sorry if I did not make my points very clear, as you seem to have interpreted them differently, so to clarify :

I agree with Art. 3 and at no point did I seek to go beyond examination of documents presented. However, an understanding of contracts is necessary to interpret whether or not some documents presented are valid. Thus if a document clearly states "signature required", it is reasonable to check for such signature. An understanding of contracts underlies the reasoning behind this requirement.

Similarly, art. 13 requires reasonable care to be taken in checking docs. I do not suggest going beyond this to examine contracts, but in the same way that it is self-evident that a certificate requires a signature, a document stating "signature required" also requires a signature.

Since the LC calls for a courier receipt, art. 29 (Courier and Post Receipts) applies. Ergo, art. 21 does not apply.

Par. 40 of ISBP (last sentence) states "If a document on its face requires a signature for its validity (e.g. "This document is not valid unless signed", or similar terms), it must be signed." Where the document itself indicates that signature is mandatory, as in this case, par. 40 (last sentence) applies.

I do not expect you to be converted, but I hope that this clarifies my viewpoint.

Laurence

[NigelHolt]

No, Lawrence, Article 29 does not apply. Sub-Article 29b only applies where ‘a credit calls for a document to be issued by a courier or expedited delivery service evidencing receipt of the GOODS’ [my emphasis]. There is no tenable argument that anyone can make that changes this incontrovertible fact.

[larryBacon]

Jeremy,

welcome back !

As you say, art. 29 b deals with documentation evidencing receipt of goods for delivery. Couriers deliver goods of a large variety, including documents. These are sometimes differentiated by using different designs of AWB's, but not usually. In this case the goods in question are documents.

There is nothing in Art. 29 b (or any other part of the UCP) to link the word "goods" to the materials enumerated or to be supplied requiring payment under the LC. The fact that documents requiring delivery by courier is cited in the LC, defines them as goods for delivery by courier, despite the fact that payment (usually) is not at issue for this service.

As a further example, if a LC is issued for despatch of a prototype software CD to company A by courier and a copy of the courier receipt required for presentation. In addition the another copy of the courier receipt is to be sent to the applicant (company B). A copy of this courier receipt is also required for presentation. In each case the courier receipt must evidence freight prepaid. The freight charge is the same for each consignment.

Each of these two documents acts as evidence of despatch by courier as required under the terms of the LC. Neither is more or less important than the other, as Art. 3 dictates that only documents required by the LC are examined. Art. 29 b applies to both.

In the former, the goods concerned is a CD; in the latter the goods concerned is a document.
The LC calls for separate documents evidencing despatch by courier for each of these goods.

Laurence

[RolandLeupi]

Laurence,
I do fully agree with you and by viewing the contribution of all participants who has given their comments on subject it seems that the majority of the trading comunity agrees as well
Roland

[LisaVC]

Roland,

Be careful of assuming that just because the majority of the participants to this discussion agree with Laurence that "the majority of the trading community" does as well. With a vote from "across the pond", I have to agree with Jeremy and Kim. Article 29 should not apply here. Construing the word "goods" to mean both the merchandise and the documents is major "leap of faith" interpretation. The UCP is fairly precise in the usage of "goods" and "documents". If the intent was for this article to apply to both the carriage of goods and documents, I think the article would have mentioned both words.

Lisa
[edited 6/9/2005 5:10:22 PM: correcting quote]

[NigelHolt]

Spot on, Lisa (or as I believe you across the pond sometimes say: ‘way to go’). No offence meant Laurence, but your line of reasoning does seem to me wholly untenable. Sorry I cannot find a more tactful way of putting this.

Anyway, we have yet further evidence as to why the d/c is the unattractive instrument that it is as not even bankers can agree on the basics.
[edited 6/9/2005 6:27:25 PM]

[KERSIP]

Unless the LC specifically states what the courier receipt should indicate / contain, the Issuing Bank would have to accept the Courier Receipt as presented. In this case it looks like the Courier Receipt does contain whatever was specifically requested in the LC.

Therefore I would not treat this as a descrepancy.



Kersi Patel

[KERSIP]

Small addition to my response.

I have assumed that the Courier Company has put their stamp (which includes a date) on the Consignment Note .... as some of them do in our market.

If there is nothing at all on the Comsignment Note from the Courier Company, than I would treat it as a descrepancy.


Kersi Patel