24(b)(iii)
24(b)(iii)
Unlike UCP500 (with respect to sub-Article 20(b)), there is not any UCP600 requirement for any documents to be ‘marked as original’ in any circumstances. Therefore, with regard to road, rail etc transport documents, I find it very odd that the last sentence of UCP500 sub-Article 28(b) (‘Banks will accept as original(s) the transport document(s) whether marked as original(s) or not.’) has been carried forward in UCP600 sub-Article 24(b)(iii), in relation to rail or inland waterway transport documents. Anyone able to provide any logical reason for this, other than poor drafting?
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy,
I believe this is to compliment/support art 24(b)ii which states: A rail transport document marked “duplicate” will be accepted as an original. Perhaps an acknowledgment of industry practice
regards,
Khalid
I believe this is to compliment/support art 24(b)ii which states: A rail transport document marked “duplicate” will be accepted as an original. Perhaps an acknowledgment of industry practice
regards,
Khalid
24(b)(iii)
Thanks Khalid, but sorry I do not see how this compliments / supports s-A 24(b)(ii).
S-A 24(b)(iii) deals with ‘marking as an original’, not appearing to be an original (as covered by s-A 17(b) & (c)), logically a completely different thing in the absence of a UCP600 requirement for any documents to be marked as original (as a result of which a R/IWTD could not possibly be refused for not being so marked even if s-A 24(b)(ii) did not exist). Provided a R/IWTD meets the requirements of s-A. 17(b)- (c) it must automatically be deemed to be an original, which it will do if it meets the terms of s-A 24(a)(i), even though the word ‘notation’ does not appear in s.-A 17(b) and (c).
Logically s-A 24(b)(ii) is only required because such a document would otherwise fall foul of s-A 17(b) (‘unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original’), as if this were not the case s-A 24(b)(ii) would be totally superfluous.
S-A 24(b)(iii) deals with ‘marking as an original’, not appearing to be an original (as covered by s-A 17(b) & (c)), logically a completely different thing in the absence of a UCP600 requirement for any documents to be marked as original (as a result of which a R/IWTD could not possibly be refused for not being so marked even if s-A 24(b)(ii) did not exist). Provided a R/IWTD meets the requirements of s-A. 17(b)- (c) it must automatically be deemed to be an original, which it will do if it meets the terms of s-A 24(a)(i), even though the word ‘notation’ does not appear in s.-A 17(b) and (c).
Logically s-A 24(b)(ii) is only required because such a document would otherwise fall foul of s-A 17(b) (‘unless the document itself indicates that it is not an original’), as if this were not the case s-A 24(b)(ii) would be totally superfluous.
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy,
What would be interesting to know is the "exact" or the extent of the meaning of "marked as an original" in art. 24, 600.
Daniel
What would be interesting to know is the "exact" or the extent of the meaning of "marked as an original" in art. 24, 600.
Daniel
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
24(b)(iii)
Dear Jeremy,
I am not sure that I can answer fully – and I would guess that no one has thought about that.
I would not think however that this would give any problems.
First of all, there is a provision rather close to “marked as original”, namely 17(c)(iii):
Quote
“states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented”
Unquote
Secondly the “marked original” in UCP 500 has been “interpreted” to mean other things than merely a making saying “original” (Both in “The determination of an "Original" document in the context of UCP 500 sub-Article 20(b)” and in ISBP paragraph’s 31-35”
Thirdly I would guess that in practical terms, UCP 600 article 24(b)(iii) may be relevant based on what document it is possible to obtain from the issuer. I hope that this would be the case anyway – and that this is based on a recommendation from the transport industry.
I any case I am convinced that the UCP 600 commentary will explain that one in full – especially if there is a difference as to “how” original a rail waybill should be compared to an original road waybill
Best regards
Kim
[edited 1/8/2007 3:04:36 PM: Rail changed to road]
I am not sure that I can answer fully – and I would guess that no one has thought about that.
I would not think however that this would give any problems.
First of all, there is a provision rather close to “marked as original”, namely 17(c)(iii):
Quote
“states that it is original, unless the statement appears not to apply to the document presented”
Unquote
Secondly the “marked original” in UCP 500 has been “interpreted” to mean other things than merely a making saying “original” (Both in “The determination of an "Original" document in the context of UCP 500 sub-Article 20(b)” and in ISBP paragraph’s 31-35”
Thirdly I would guess that in practical terms, UCP 600 article 24(b)(iii) may be relevant based on what document it is possible to obtain from the issuer. I hope that this would be the case anyway – and that this is based on a recommendation from the transport industry.
I any case I am convinced that the UCP 600 commentary will explain that one in full – especially if there is a difference as to “how” original a rail waybill should be compared to an original road waybill
Best regards
Kim
[edited 1/8/2007 3:04:36 PM: Rail changed to road]
24(b)(iii)
The existence of this wording doesn't matter in any way.
it is absolutely superfluous and I agree with the view that it has been inserted for the recommendation from the transport industry without further deliberation on it as it already exists in UCP 500.
Regards,
Yahya
it is absolutely superfluous and I agree with the view that it has been inserted for the recommendation from the transport industry without further deliberation on it as it already exists in UCP 500.
Regards,
Yahya
24(b)(iii)
Thanks for your views. If I read correctly, the consensus is UCP600 sub-Article 24(b)(iii) is an irrelevance. Wonder why the Drafting Group could not see such an obvious thing (especially when it was pointed out more than once -by at least one NC- during the drafting process).
[edited 1/8/2007 1:39:22 PM]
[edited 1/8/2007 1:39:22 PM]
24(b)(iii)
Maybe another thing. In French copy 1 of the rail waybill is called "original". It is written on the document. Copy 4 (copy for the shipper) is called "duplicata de la lettre de voiture" and this is also written on the document. Therefore copy four will be marked "duplicata" and will not be marked "original". Are you with me?. So, it could explain b.ii. and iii
Daniel
Daniel
24(b)(iii)
Tout à fait, Daniel.
However, I still cannot see that this provides any justification for carrying forward the last sentence of UCP500 28(b)(ii). All that is needed -at most- is UCP600 24(b)(ii) to cover this and then only if one takes the view that the word ‘duplicate’ automatically is an indication that a document is not an original per UCP600 17(b).
Incidentally I was watching the news on TSR last night. Why the big hoo-ha about the all Swiss butter launched by Coop?
However, I still cannot see that this provides any justification for carrying forward the last sentence of UCP500 28(b)(ii). All that is needed -at most- is UCP600 24(b)(ii) to cover this and then only if one takes the view that the word ‘duplicate’ automatically is an indication that a document is not an original per UCP600 17(b).
Incidentally I was watching the news on TSR last night. Why the big hoo-ha about the all Swiss butter launched by Coop?
24(b)(iii)
Jeremy,
If you are really interested, it seems that the butter launched by COOP is not produced by the usual two big producers but by another company and sold by COOP at a more advantageous price for the consumers. So, some people see it as the beginning of the end of a monopoly and this event is hailed as a revolution (It does not take much to call something a revolution or a historic event in Switzerland since nothing ever happens).
Personally, I prefer French butter for my butties.
I would agree that 24 b ii is enough but maybe the Drafting Group wanted merely to insist on the fact that a document called "duplicata/e" may be presented when a RWB is required.
As Kim put it, the mystery will presumably be solved with the release of the Commentary. I hope we will not be dissapointed by the Commentary, we put so much hope in it.
Daniel
If you are really interested, it seems that the butter launched by COOP is not produced by the usual two big producers but by another company and sold by COOP at a more advantageous price for the consumers. So, some people see it as the beginning of the end of a monopoly and this event is hailed as a revolution (It does not take much to call something a revolution or a historic event in Switzerland since nothing ever happens).
Personally, I prefer French butter for my butties.
I would agree that 24 b ii is enough but maybe the Drafting Group wanted merely to insist on the fact that a document called "duplicata/e" may be presented when a RWB is required.
As Kim put it, the mystery will presumably be solved with the release of the Commentary. I hope we will not be dissapointed by the Commentary, we put so much hope in it.
Daniel