However named

[LeoCullen]

If a bill of lading is called for under a documentary credit, banks will accept a document, however named, that complies with the credit and the provisions of UCP 500.

However, a non-negotiable sea waybill may be presented that satisfies the terms of the credit and the provisions of UCP (Article 23 etc..)but common sense suggests that this should not be accepted by banks due to the different natures of these documents.

Can I have your views on this?

How would such a discrepancy be described?

[PGauntlett]

'However named' cannot be treated as literally as you suggest otherwise (and this is obviously non-sensical) an AWB would acceptable as a b/l if it had loading on vessel details as required by the l/c. A sea waybill is a different document to a b/l and that would be my discrepancy.
The however named references in UCP are to allow acceptance of a b/l headed e.g. 'for combined transport' under an l/c calling for an ocean b/l.

[larryBacon]

This is an interesting question, the basis of which is the fact that UCP does not define each of the transport documents. To do so within UCP would not be a practical exercise and there are many reliable tomes available on the subject.
Therefore one must rely on the knowledge and expertise of the banks to make such a judgement. To determine the validity of a seawaybill presented as a B/L may require an easy judgement. It may not be so easy to distinguish between a multimodal B/L and a forwarders B/L.
In the case of the SWB presented as a B/L, the discrepancy would be one of failure to present the document required.

Laurence A. J. Bacon
laurence_aj@hotmail.com

[vobrien]

Indeed, this is an interesting question . However, as UCP 500 states 'however named' I believe that in the event of litigation this could go either way.

To clarify points made earlier concerning a Multimodal B/L and a forwarders B/L.
A Multimodal Bill of Lading is acceptable under a Credit which calls for a bill of lading covering a port-to-port shipment. It is not the name of the document that is important in this specific case. What is important is that the content of the document must comply with the terms and conditions of the Credit and the provisions of Article 23.

Forwarders Bills of Lading are also acceptable under a Credit which calls for a bill of lading covering a port-to-port shipment. However, in this instance the document must indicate the name of the carrier and to have been signed or authenticated by the forwarder as a named agent for or on behalf of the carrier (or Master). It is also important to remember that a forwarder signing or authenticating must also indicate the name and the capacity of the party (Carrier or Master) on whose behalf that forwarder is acting as an agent.

Vincent
[edited 4/30/01 10:02:20 AM by sean (Moderator)]

[larryBacon]

I made the point earlier that Forwarder's Bills of Lading may be difficult to distinguish from other Bills of Lading.
My thanks to Vincent for demonstrating this point !
In his last reply he has confused an Ocean B/L with a Forwarder's B/L. His description of a Forwarder's B/L is straight out of Article 23, whereas as everybody knows, Article 30 deals with "Transport Documents issued by Freight Forwarders". The requirements under Article 30 are quite different to those of Article 23.

Laurence A. J. Bacon

laurence_aj@hotmail.com

[vobrien]

Larry is correct is pointing out that the requirements under Article 30 are quite different to those of Article 23. And he is right again in pointing out that my determination of whether or not a Forwarders Bill of Lading is acceptable under a Credit comes straight out of UCP 500 Article 23 as that is where we must look to determine compliance '.if a bill of lading is called for under a documentary credit
' ( first words of first posting on this query) and not Article 30.

By way of background Article 30 UCP 500 evolved from Articles 25 and Articles 26 of UCP 400. During the revision process to UCP 500 many National Committees (NC's) expressed concerns that UCP 400 was appearing to endorse a particular trade associations bill of lading (FBL). For this reason, this was addressed by neutralising UCP 500 Article 30 to state clearly that a transport document issued by a freight forwarder will be considered for acceptance.

So, yes Article 30 is different from Article 23 but from the bankers perspective it is essential to be able to apply the provisions on a case by case basis to determine compliance. This case, as originally posted concerns 'If a bill of lading is called for under a documentary credit' This should now be quite clear.

Article 30 indicates that any freight forwarders transport document will be acceptable provided: (1) It is authorised in the Credit, or (2) it is issued and signed by the freight forwarder according to the conditions of the UCP 500 transport document as actually specified in the Credit itself. This is the key - what is called for in the Credit

So back to the our situation, the first line of the first posting on this subject states 'if a bill of lading is called for under a documentary credit...' then we must turn to UCP 500 Article 23 to determine compliance.

Vin

[T.O.Lee]

As a columnist of Lloyd's maritime magazine whilst I was in Hong Kong (1993-95), I would comment that the issue of the difference between a marine/ocean or port-to-port BL and a forwarder's BL is not so simply as already commented by bankers above, solely based on the UCP 500.

The difference between these two documents lies in the capacity of the issuer. According to the Hamburg Rules (a product from United Nations proposed and supported by relatively small nations which do not own too many freighters), under Article 1, carriers can be classified into actual carrier (who actually uses his ship to carry the goods) and contractual carrier (who does not actually carry the goods but however assumes the responsibility of a carrier). As a result, a B/L issued by an actual carrier is a marine/ocean (p-t-p) BL and those issued by a contractual carrier (of which a forwarder is one) is a forwarder's BL named in the UCP 500.

"NVOCC or NVO in USA, a carrier or a forwarder?" is another issue, related but different. In USA they may be deemed to be carriers or are carriers, all depends on how you look at things.

This is only the surface of the problem. "How to determine on their faces as to identify which is which?" and "What would be the different results in case of claims against each party and their different liabilities as an actual carrier and as a contractual or paper carrier?" are long stories that need a two day workshops to explain in details.

We are from www.tole.com

[edited 6/20/01 6:06:48 PM]

[larryBacon]

I would like to endorse T. O. Lee's comments that bankers sometimes take a simplistic view on transport documents. The first posting under this topic stated that a bill of lading was required. In the absence of any further information, a transport document complying with Articles 23, 26 or 30 would satisfy this. If charter party B/L was permitted, this would extend the options to include Article 25. Much is written categorising the reasons for rejection of presentation of documents, but surely the causes of these are more important. In my opinion, one of the prime causes is poorly worded or ambiguous L/Cs added to the fact that beneficiaries are often reticent in requesting amendments of what may appear to be minor flaws in the wording.

Laurence A. J. Bacon
laurence_aj@hotmail.com

[PGauntlett]

Simplistic? It's impossible. Articles 23-30 take up a fair chunk of UCP 500 and, additionally, there is position paper no 4. The checking of a transport doc is a complex affair.

Because the Articles are so specific there is no room for taking a wider view and UCP 500 must be applied literally (perhaps that's what is meant by simplistic).

I've always thought it ridiculous that if the Master himself signs he doesn't have give his name but if an Agent signs on his behalf he has to state the name of the Master. Where is the logic in that?

If common sense were applied a b/l that doesn't specifically give the Master's name would be acceptable but UCP prevents this.

Banks are handcuffed by the Rules as much as everybody else

[larryBacon]

My reference to "simplistic" earlier was that it is not enough to ask for a bill of lading in a L/C. This does not specify whether an ocean B/L, charter party B/L, multimodal B/L or forwarders B/L is acceptable. It is not usually the case that choice of B/L is left to the beneficiary.

Laurence A. J. Bacon
laurence_aj@hotmail.com