House Bill of Lading

MarkColeman · Post by **MarkColeman** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:00 am

I have another question regarding Bill of Ladings. My last question went for over a month. I wonder what response this will get.
I have an L/C that has the standard “Full set of clean on board ocean Bill of Lading made out To Order marked freight collect” The shipment is only one pallet at 1m3 and a Freight Forwarders House B/L (HB/L) has been presented. It is signed “as agent for the Carrier” and it states who the carrier is. NO WHERE on the L/C does it state that a freight forwarders B/L is not acceptable.

The HB/L has been rejected due to the fact that the L/C asks for an “OCEAN” B/L. They say that if a HB/L is to be presented, the L/C MUST have a clause stating something along the lines of “A house B/L is allowed to be presented under this L/C”.

What is everyone’s option? If a HB/L is going to be presented, does the L/C have to state “HB/L is acceptable?”

Regards, Mark for Australia

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:00 am

Mark,

My personal views, without liability/responsibility, based on what you say, are:

1. Whether a so called “house” B/L has been presented is of no relevance.

2. What maters is does if it meets the terms of sub-Article 23a. Your example does.

3. Just in case anyone mentions Article 30, the document here has not –in law- been issued by the freight forwarder but by the carrier.

4. I believe Opinion R287, although it deals with an awb, supports all the above.

Jeremy
[edited 9/15/03 9:53:46 AM]

PGauntlett · Post by **PGauntlett** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:00 am

I agree that b/l acceptable as it meets requirements of Art 23. It could also be acceptable under Art 30 if the freight forwarder itself has signed as an agent for the carrier (see para ii).

Phil Gauntlett

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 1:00 am

I have to admit I only got as far as sub-Art30(i)and, while I standby my statement 3. above, I agree with Phil that sub-Art30(ii) puts the matter beyond dispute.
[edited 9/15/03 1:46:45 PM]

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:00 am

That was a relatively easy one Mark, since article 23 et al tell us that a rose by any name will smell as sweet. But what about a HBL which has a nice little paragraph saying "may be used as a Charter Party B/L if applicable", but bears no other mention saying it is in fact subject to a CP?

Judith

larryBacon · Post by **larryBacon** » Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:00 am

Judith,

are you acting as an "agent provocateur" or just plain stirring it ?
I regard the clause you mention in a similar fashion to the often seen B/L marked for use as an ocean B/L or multimodal B/L. The completion of the B/L should make it apparent in which category it falls.

Laurence

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Wed Sep 17, 2003 1:00 am

Actually Lawrence, a bit of both -- I did get into a "strenuous" discussion with one of my correspondents who insisted that any mention of Charter Party made the B/L unacceptable. I won.

Judith