ICC Digital Library Forum

Leo,

the reason you are in the dark is that everyone is in the dark. Let me elaborate further by taking your example and quantifying it by adding information that despatch is required from Vancouver to New York. Without further information to narrow the field, a B/L indicating compliance with any of the Articles 23,24,26,28 and possibly even 27 would be acceptable, although I have come across similar instances where banks have assumed that because the names of the cities mentioned also happened to be seaports, only Article 23 type B/L would be acceptable. For further clarification, in this case despatch from Vancouver to New York is possible on a port-to-port basis, but also Multimodal covering (a) road and sea (b) road and air (c) road and train. It is also possible by road only or train only. In the absence of any instruction in the DC to the contrary, a B/L indicating compliance by any of these means should be acceptable.
I have deliberately excluded Article 25 as acceptability by positive affirmation in the DC would be necessary. This affirmation may or may not exclude other options of routing the goods mentioned above, depending on the wording used.

I hope that this adds some light to the subject.

Laurence

Jeremy,

thank you for the apt "mot juste". The phrase involving "unstoppable force and immovable object" comes to mind.

Laurence

MY CONGRATULATIONS TO LEO

When I wake up this morning, I see the record-breaking inputs within one day to a query in the Discussion Forum. My heartiest congratulations to Leo, the man behind Discussion Forum (In Black? a “MIB”?)!

THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE VANCOUVER

Thanks to Laurence for his numerous inputs whilst I was still in bed so that I can save a lot of time as he has already said what I should have said.

For the Vancouver to New York example, Laurence should have pointed out that there are in fact two Vancouver’s, one in Canada, which is well known, and another near Vancouver in Canada but in USA, an inland city. So Vancouver to New York could mean port-to-port, land-to-land (or surface transport to be precise) and multimodal. The third Vancouver is Vancouver Island at the west side of Vancouver in Canada according to Lloyds Maritime Atlas from our private library.

So a document checker can only determine the UCP 500 Article to be applied by the contents of the transport document presented. Even our “rocky” friends have to admit this without doubt, as the DC requires only a BL from Vancouver to New York and nothing more. “Forget about the title and look at the contents to decide” is an ISBP after all. Perhaps Leo would understand precisely what Laurence means now.

JEREMY SHOLD LEARN FROM THE FAILURE OF CHINESE KUNG FU

It is said that a training course is only as good as the trainer. If a banker with limited knowledge about transport is to train the bankers on transport documents, (i) he has no such competence and (ii) he is making it worse as some of his “limited knowledge” may be incorrect due to limitation. This is particularly so when the trainer tries to answer a question from the floor on a sophisticated issue about transport documents or transport practice that are out of the scope of "competence" of the "limited knowledge" trainer from a bank. Then there is no such thing called progress in this world.

The Chinese Kung Fu has the same problem, getting worst and worst from generation to generation. It is a Kung Fu practice that (i) the trainees are not allowed to get training from another trainer not belonging to the same “House” and (ii) a trainer may keep the most powerful part of his Kung Fu for his own protection, to ensure that he can win over his disciples in case one of them challenges him at a later date.

Laurence,

Thanks for the many inputs. For the spelling error “folk” for "fork", we have to blame the MS Word spelling check that cannot spot this typo. We have to blame ourselves for missing your humours.

www.tolee.com

[edited 7/10/02 6:54:35 PM]

Laurence,

Like T.O. Lee, you are suggesting that bankers should be “entering the kitchen” to understand more about shipping, transport, insurance, etc. The objective of course is not to “become a cook” but rather be able to manage LC operations in better way, thus, adding value to the process. Although I do agree with this approach, I’m not quite sure about its practicality as training is not a one-time exercise. It is rather an ongoing process that relates to all staff whether junior or senior.

What’s your view on this particular query, i.e. is the truck consignment note a transport document?

Dimitri

Dimitri,

rather than dwelling on alimentary analogies, I prefer to consider driving a car. It is not sufficient to be physically capable of driving a car. One must also have a basic knowledge of the law of the country regarding speed, parking, seatbelts, which side of the road on which to drive. One must also have some elementary mechanical knowledge - changing a tyre & maintaining its correct pressure, maintaining the minimum required for fuel, water, hydraulics, engine oil etc. Knowing the car's weight limit, the effects of alcohol on one's ability to drive safely etc. This does not require us to become lawyers, mechanics or doctors, but imposes a minimum appreciation of associated aspects. I take a similar view with DCs. When I first started using DCs about thirty years ago, it was from the perspective of the bene, but I made it my business to know it from the banker's viewpoint. I felt this necessary to take a balanced view of disputed discrepancies.

In general, I would accept a TCN as acceptable under Article 28, but as I have said previously, the content is the important factor, not the title in determining compliance.

Laurence

Dimitri,

I omitted to respond to your remark about training. I presume that when Incoterms 2000 was being introduced your bank arranged for dissemination & possibly training in this subject. About 20 years ago, Lloyd's standard policy was changed. Presumably training was necessary in your bank. When legal cases determined that an original document needed to be so marked, I presume that training need was addressed. Similarly when that was reversed by Voest Alpine & others plus the ICC Decision, training was presumably provided.

So you are correct that training is an ongoing process, not a one-off. Successful companies in the commercial world see training as developing their staff in order to stay ahead of the competition, avoid legal problems etc.

Do banks take a similar viewpoint ?

Laurence

Dimitri, Jeremy & Laurence,

As a Member of the Institute of Training and Development in London, we have a training concept called “life time learning”. And the business management guru’s new concept is “A Learning Incorporation”. That means we cannot stop learning in our lives, even after retirement, simply because everything is changing everyday, a concept of Buddhism as well.

If you cannot change the world, then you have to change yourself. Hope Jeremy would agree to this.

We particularly admire the “motor car driver” example given by Laurence. It is one of the most brilliant examples given in the Discussion Forum. We agree without any reservation.

In China, to get a driving licence for a motorcycle, one has to know how to fix the trouble shooting on a highway, more than changing a flat tyre of course. Why? Because in China, most of the provinces are not fully developed like Canada or USA. AAA roadside assistance service is not always available in the remote areas. We are not talking about Shanghai or Beijing, but those areas we do not see tourists such as the desserts along the ancient Silk Road. If you don’t know how to fix the motorcycle you have to die if prayers won’t work out for you, we are afraid.

To Jeremy, who refuses to learn other non-banking things, we advise you not to get a motorcycle licence in China.

HOW WE CAN BEAT OUR COMPETITORS

It is the “additional knowledge” that makes a banker or a consultant standing tall amongst colleagues or competitors. In business management terms, this is known as ”competitive advantage” that determines to whom our customers would give their businesses to. We are known as an expensive consultant and trainer and yet many of our customers do a lot of referrals. Why? Because we also know the non-banking things. Otherwise we cannot survive as we have 500 plus retired bankers in Toronto alone running about to compete with us.

www.tolee.com

[edited 7/11/02 3:28:07 PM]

Hello all,

I was in London yesterday, showing my aversion to learning by discussing recent credit/guarantee court cases with lawyers at an ICC UK seminar. What time did you leave the pub, Phil? I certainly feel less than brilliant today.

Anyway, to battle. Suffice it to say, I continue to disagree with Laurence and T.O. on the subject of the method to employ when determining which article to apply. Taking Leo & Laurences’ example, "Bill of lading consigned to order of shipper marked freight paid. Shipment from Vancouver to New York.":

Does the credit call for a ‘road rail or inland waterway transport document’? No.
Does the credit call for a ‘transport document covering two modes of transport’? No.
Does the credit call for a ‘non-negotiable sea waybill’? No.
Does the credit call for an ‘air transport document’? No.
Does the credit call for a ‘bill of lading covering port-to-port shipment’? Yes.
Therefore, Article 23 alone applies, period (as my cousins across the pond are wont to stay).

Toodle pip.

P.S. T.O., how about some Clausewitz next time?

[edited 7/12/02 11:22:42 AM]

Agreed

In my posting to Leo of 7/10/02 I stated that ".... banks have assumed that because the names of the cities mentioned also happened to be seaports, only Article 23 type B/L would be acceptable." My thanks to Jeremy for verification of this.
Most people understand the word "shipment" to mean despatch by any mode of transport, but some do not accept this. I therefore avoided this word and instead used "despatch" when describing movement of the goods, thus indicating that any mode of transport was acceptable. Jeremy has misquoted me in using "shipment" in place of "despatch". This may be the reason why he has determined that the only valid mode of transport is by sea. However, he has given no reason for his decision. He says that the credit calls for a port-to-port shipment, but this is not so, and I am intrigued to know how he can discern this without any such indication in the DC.

Laurence