Pickup date and sign on the courier receipt

[larryBacon]

Lisa,

I agree with you that I do not take the personal views of participants here as necessarily representative of the trading community in general. DC-PRO is good for exploring where such differences lie in interpretation and sometimes finding a consensus. Even when such consensus is not found, it is useful for all concerned to be informed of such differences.

I would be obliged if you would point out to me where in the UCP there is a distinction made between documents and goods, such that documents may not be regarded as goods. For example, software licensing certificates may be expensive and are sold around the world. Are these documents not goods in the way that you differentiate them ? Similarly, documents of title, e.g. B/L are traded worldwide.

Art. 4 tells us that all parties deal with documents and not with goods. Therefore documents relating to despatch of B/L are not distinguished from documents relating to despatch of courier docs or any other docs.

Jeremy,
as ever the gent, I appreciate your candour. We can agree, however, that there are flaws in the wording of the UCP. Try to put this in perspective, however, as the currently proposed wording of the next UCP will leave many of us with headaches in the years to come and the UCP 500 will seem perfect by comparison.

Kersi,

you appear to contradict yourself in your latest postings, or perhaps clarification is needed. On the one hand you say that the courier receipt should be accepted as presented, but later you say that if missing a courier company stamp/date you would not accept it.
If you accept that the courier receipt should be treated under UCP Art. 29, then I can understand looking for a signature or stamp etc, but if you contend that Art. 21 applies, then how can a company stamp be required ?

Laurence

[RolandLeupi]

art. 29 clearly indicates how a courier or post receipt should be issued in order to be accepted by banks. The fact that said article indicates "goods" does not change anything if the shipment represents goods or documents and much probably so was the intent of the legislator. A legal sentence would certainly make "juris prudentia" and avalize this meaning.
The fact that the document should be view under art. 21 is neigter correct. This article refers to unspecified issuers or contents of documents. This article may apply when a L/C requests a quality certificate for ex. But a courier receipt by its wording already specifies who has to issue same and its content : courier = courier company and receipt = to confirm receipt. A receipt without any date or signature is worth nothing. So in this case art. 21 does not apply and I would check the document for its function. I remember that during the presentation of the actual UCP at the Chamber of Commerce in Paris a similar discussion arised when the presenter was explaining that since the FCR is not a shipping document art. 21 applies (said certification has been also reported on several documentation issued by the ICC). this point of view has already at that time raised not few contraditions. In this case as well the word itselfs indicates what must be presented, i.e. a document issued by a forwarder, dated and signed since being a certificate, and must acknowledge receipt of something. In addition to that the first standard FCR has been presented by the FIATA in 1955. So how can a bank dealing in documentary credits argue that such a document, if not better specified, goes under art. 21?
To be perfect, UCP rules should contain at least 789 art. and a separate guide should explain all of them. Since the early beginning the UCP have been created in order to facilitate trading worlwide. If now due to some literalist interpretetions of explicit articles we go the other way round it seems to me that we are going to ditch those efforts.
Roland

[KimChristensen]

Dear Roland,

Most of your arguments have been presented here before under this topic, and I have nothing else to add in that respect.

However you mention the FCR certificate. I have been reading your posting quite a few times, and I can not figure out what you are trying to say. Therefore I kindly ask you to clarify this; in specific which article you would use when examining such a document – as well as the rationale behind it.

Thanks in advance
Kim

[RolandLeupi]

Art. 21 plus art. 39 of the ISBP

[KimChristensen]

Dear Roland,

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you, and would like to add, that ISBP paragraph 20 may also be relevant here.

To large extent I understand your frustration, and I must say I hope only few non-bankers have been following this discussion: It is sad that we can not agree on the basics. Discussions like this one will not help to promote the LC, regardless if you are on the "article 29 team" or the "article 21 team"

Best regards
Kim

[NigelHolt]

I can see we are going to have ‘War and Peace’ on this subject. I cannot see that the fact that ‘A receipt without any date or signature is worth nothing’ has any relevance as to whether or not article 29 applies to all courier receipts specified in a credit. What I can only describe as ‘the playing with of words’ (or ‘legerdemain’ to use one of Laurence’s expressions) -by trying to suggest that the word ‘goods’ can extend to something other than the goods covered by the credit and thus referred to in, for example, sub-Art 37c- employed by the ‘art 29 team’ has signally failed to convince me.

If ‘A receipt without any date or signature is worth nothing’ then the credit quite simply needs to expressly require a date and signature, where there is not definitely an applicable article of the UCP that requires this, as in the case in question, so as to avoid any possibility of dispute. Remember, we bankers need the examination process to be as mechanical as possible, therefore requiring little -if any- ‘judgment’, so as to keep costs down and avoid operational losses.

I would also observe that the non-application of art 29 in this situation facilitates international trade as it increases the chances of the documents being treated as compliant and thus taken up and paid.

Lastly, I would have thought a more tenable line of argument would be that a ‘receipt’, -by its very nature- requires the signature of the GIVER of the receipt and that this is therefore international standard banking practice, notwithstanding that the matter is not covered by the UCP, Pub. 645. or -as far as I can see- any ICC ‘Banking’ Commission official opinions. I certainly would not dismiss such an argument out of hand (notwithstanding previous postings that may give a contrary impression!). However, I do not see any grounds for saying that a ‘receipt’ -by its very nature- requires a date.

[larryBacon]

Jeremy,

your memory must be better than mine. I don't recall using "legerdemain", but if I did, surely what you suggest here is "leger de mot". In any case, I deny playing with words. Documents evidencing receipt or despatch of goods need not refer exclusively to chargeable goods or those goods described in invoices presented.
If a LC calls for 1% of goods listed to be supplied FOC, this does not disqualify them (FOC) as goods under the credit. If the LC requires documentation evidencing receipt or despatch of FOC goods, this requirement is equally valid as a similar requirement for chargeable goods.
If the same LC contains a documentary requirement evidencing receipt or despatch of documentation, this is also equally valid.
Your suggestion that the non-application of art. 29 facilitates international trade should, in my opinion, read "facilitates bankers". Speaking from over 30 years experience as an exporter/importer, the LC process is not about finding ways of overlooking flaws in documentation, but of safeguarding the interests of both importers and exporters.

The fact that a receipt, by its nature requires a date is underpinned by Art. 29 b ii. I alluded earlier that the wording of UCP 500 could be better. In the case of ARt. 29, this refers in part to courier recipts. The document used in practice is not only a receipt, but a waybill and is usually titled as such. UCP 500 sidesteps the issue of waybills by not referring to them where they should have (Art. 29) and by limiting their scope to that of a receipt. To call a waybill a receipt is as blinkered as calling a B/L a receipt. It only gives part of the full picture.

Laurence

[NigelHolt]

Laurence, see your posting of 10 Oct 02 in the General Forum under ‘Shipping Schedule under a Transferable lc’. As you can see, I have a long memory!

Your views above noted, but not agreed with.

Regards, Jeremy

[edited 6/16/2005 1:05:37 PM]

[VinodR]

Gents,
I feel that ICC opinion TA583rev could be of some relevence here.
regards
Terrence

[LisaVC]

I've been traveling on business, but delighted to find that this discussion continues. May I throw in another twist? I'm not sure how is it in the rest of the world, but here in the U.S., all of the major couriers do not sign the courier receipt at all. Instead, they simply scan in the bar code(s) and take the package(s) away. You can easy check the trail on their website using the courier receipt number. How would that play into your scenario? Obviously, the printed page off the courier's website showing that the package made it to its intended destination would not satisfy this documentary requirement as stated but is the printed page any less valid? Actually, I personally would prefer that as the signed courier receipt would show only the pick-up whereas the printed page from the website would evidence delivery (assuming the page was printed after the actual delivery occurred).