Article 23 stated if DC calls for a B/L covering port-to-port shipment "...banks will, unless otherwise stipulated in the Credit, accept a document, however named, which:......"
.
Just wants to have more understanding on the meaning of "HOWEVER NAMED". Is it not a discrepancy when DC calls for Marine B/L but submitted a document named "Marine Cargo Receipt" with all the other terms complied with Art 23. If so, what's the case if this document has been taken to the court as Cargo Receipt is not a title document actually?
Name of B/L
Name of B/L
Joseph,
Some personal observations, without liability or responsibility on my part, which I hope are helpful:
1. Read literally, Article 23 allows a document described as a Marine Cargo Receipt (or air waybill!) to be presented, provided it meets all the requirements of Article 23 and the credit. However, while I consider the wording of Art 23 to be a laudable attempt to increase documentary compliance, I suspect it can cause more problems than it solves, as I believe your example illustrates.
2. Article 23 does not concern it self with the ‘document of title’ role of a bill of lading.
3. I understand that under U.S. federal law ‘straight consigned’ bills of lading are not documents of title and that many carriers issue ‘straight consigned’ bills of lading, irrespective of their applicable law, as non-documents of title, i.e. legally as waybills / consignment notes. Therefore, I do not consider one can automatically take it that a b/l is, or should be, a document of title.
4. Sub-Art 23(a) (iv) states that banks will not examine the terms and conditions of carriage. The basis on which the carrier will deliver goods to the holder / consignee of a bill is logically part of ‘the terms and conditions of carriage’.
5. Notwithstanding 1 – 4 above, I have a great deal of sympathy with someone that argues that a credit that calls for a ‘full set’ of -particularly ‘order’- bills of lading impliedly requires documents of title to be presented.
Overall, the answer to your question will –I believe- depend on how literal a reading the court concerned gives the UCP, perhaps combined with how realistic it considers it is to expect a banker to pick up these matters when examining documents under a credit (particularly in the light of the minuscule sums banks receive for performing this task).
Finally, I look forward to receiving your own views next time I post a query.
Some personal observations, without liability or responsibility on my part, which I hope are helpful:
1. Read literally, Article 23 allows a document described as a Marine Cargo Receipt (or air waybill!) to be presented, provided it meets all the requirements of Article 23 and the credit. However, while I consider the wording of Art 23 to be a laudable attempt to increase documentary compliance, I suspect it can cause more problems than it solves, as I believe your example illustrates.
2. Article 23 does not concern it self with the ‘document of title’ role of a bill of lading.
3. I understand that under U.S. federal law ‘straight consigned’ bills of lading are not documents of title and that many carriers issue ‘straight consigned’ bills of lading, irrespective of their applicable law, as non-documents of title, i.e. legally as waybills / consignment notes. Therefore, I do not consider one can automatically take it that a b/l is, or should be, a document of title.
4. Sub-Art 23(a) (iv) states that banks will not examine the terms and conditions of carriage. The basis on which the carrier will deliver goods to the holder / consignee of a bill is logically part of ‘the terms and conditions of carriage’.
5. Notwithstanding 1 – 4 above, I have a great deal of sympathy with someone that argues that a credit that calls for a ‘full set’ of -particularly ‘order’- bills of lading impliedly requires documents of title to be presented.
Overall, the answer to your question will –I believe- depend on how literal a reading the court concerned gives the UCP, perhaps combined with how realistic it considers it is to expect a banker to pick up these matters when examining documents under a credit (particularly in the light of the minuscule sums banks receive for performing this task).
Finally, I look forward to receiving your own views next time I post a query.
-
larryBacon
- Posts: 689
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:26 pm
Name of B/L
With the notable exception of some freaky laws in the US, most countries accept that a B/L must be a document of title, despite the fact that the UCP does not address this issue. This query is not about the name of the document, but that it suggests that the document in question only fulfills one of the functions of a B/L (receipt for goods).
If the LC calls for the B/L consigned to order, this underlines the assumption that the document must be a document of title.
Laurence
If the LC calls for the B/L consigned to order, this underlines the assumption that the document must be a document of title.
Laurence
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Name of B/L
Dear Joseph
With the unfortunate matter of “the clauses in bills of lading allowing the carrier to release the goods without presentation of the original” in mind, I would be very reluctant to accept a Marine Cargo Receipt when the L/C requirement is a bill of lading.
You can argue both ways, but since a requirement of “bill of lading” is synonymous with a document of title to a great number of banks, the risk of refusal is considerable.
Best regards
Kim
With the unfortunate matter of “the clauses in bills of lading allowing the carrier to release the goods without presentation of the original” in mind, I would be very reluctant to accept a Marine Cargo Receipt when the L/C requirement is a bill of lading.
You can argue both ways, but since a requirement of “bill of lading” is synonymous with a document of title to a great number of banks, the risk of refusal is considerable.
Best regards
Kim