Page 3 of 3

17(e)

Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:00 am
by DanielD
Bogdan,
Yes, I agree but anyway, I will be interested to receive an "official" answer to this issue hopefully in the Commentary.
Daniel

17(e)

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 12:00 am
by DonSmith
Wonderful discussion & logic trail! Trust this will be addressed in the commentary in a precise manner that leaves no room for doubt and for the creation of 'mythical' discrepancies.

For me, if I want all of those invoices signed, I would explicitly say in the credit "commercial invoice in original and 5 copies, all of which must be signed" or something similar - the less confusion the beter.

ALSO - we should recall the thrust of the UCP600 is to place the responsibility on the issuer to be clear and precise in their documentary requirements - i.e. lack of clarity should be held against the issuer of the credit, not the poor beneficiary or nominated bank.

Happy 2007 to All.
Don Smith

17(e)

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:00 am
by NigelHolt
I see that the latest proposed revision to ISBP contains, as para 32, a sentence that reads:

‘Copies of documents need not be signed.’

I suppose we must be grateful for small mercies.