ICC Digital Library Forum

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?

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 The goods have to be withdrawn.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

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

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

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.

Safer on TV. These stupid cows can really be naughty. I prefer the boat race between Oxford and Cambridge
Nice W/E
Daniel

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

Thanks Judith.

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

Thanks for that Judith.