20(a)(iii)

General questions regarding UCP 600
NigelHolt
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by NigelHolt » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:00 am

Reference to an intended port of discharge (found in UCP500 sub-Article 23(a)(iii)) has been omitted. There is not any obvious reason for this to me and the proposed revision to ISBP645 does not deal with this matter.

In the absence of clear and sound guidance in the commentary or an opinion, my assumption is that bank practice under UCP600 will be to treat an intended port of discharge in the same way as an intended port of loading. Do others agree?
DanielD
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:16 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by DanielD » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:00 am

Jeremy,

I had noted that too. Once more, I rely on the Commentary (naively perhaps). So far, I find it hard to answer.
By the way, the third company which produces butter for Coop has problems with quality. The goods have to be withdrawn. No easy to compete with big companies...
Daniel
DanielD
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:16 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by DanielD » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:00 am

On second thought, but it is just guesswork, may be the DG in all their wisdom have decided that is has never happen and so is useless??
Daniel
KimChristensen
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by KimChristensen » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:00 am

Hi Daniel

Yes I would think this would happen very rare indeed, and would add (and I may out on the deep waters here – but that would not be the first time :-) that a “port of discharge” in my mind would always be an “intended” port.
That being said I would not know if maritime laws would treat an intended port of discharge differently than a “straight” port of discharge.

Best regards
Kim
NigelHolt
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by NigelHolt » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:00 am

Thanks Daniel & Kim.

Daniel, on the subject of
spécificités suisses, looking forward to spring and the lutte de vaches hérens being on TV5!

Good w/e all.
DanielD
Posts: 538
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:16 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by DanielD » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:00 am

Safer on TV. These stupid cows can really be naughty. I prefer the boat race between Oxford and Cambridge
Nice W/E
Daniel
JudithAutié
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by JudithAutié » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:00 am

Sorry, I don't agree that there is a problem here. In my opinion (and experience) the only time you see an "intended" discharge port is on a C/P B/L. When carriage is contracted for a non-charter party, the contract is from one place to another.

If in fact I ever did come across a B/L that mentionned "intended" for the disport, I would be most leary and look for some indication that the B/L wasn't subject to a C/P.

On the other hand, I don't know how I would refuse it, absent such a mention of C/P, but I'm sure I would look for one.

That's nasty isn't it? Oh well...

Regards
Judith
NigelHolt
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by NigelHolt » Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:00 am

Thanks Judith.
JudithAutié
Posts: 195
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:20 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by JudithAutié » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:00 am

Jeremy
I have just come across a B/L with "intended port of discharge" that is not subject to a C/P. It's issued by a Greek company Sarlis Container Services.

Fortunately we're still working under UCP500 ;-))

Judith
NigelHolt
Posts: 1449
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:24 pm

20(a)(iii)

Post by NigelHolt » Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:00 am

Thanks for that Judith.
Post Reply