I have an Ocean B/L signed as below:
Signed on behalf of the Carrier:
As Carrier:
For and on behalf of
ABC Container Line
Signature
_________________
Authorized Signature(s)
Would you accept this B/L in accordance with UCP 500 Art.23-a
What is the capacity of the signer?
Thanks,
Albert
Capacity of signer
Capacity of signer
Albert,
I cannot see why you have any concerns regarding the capacity of the signer. Provided one is satisfied that the b/l ‘indicate the name of the carrier’ as being ABC Container Line then -to me- the b/l seems ‘to have been signed … by the carrier’.
Regards, Jeremy
I cannot see why you have any concerns regarding the capacity of the signer. Provided one is satisfied that the b/l ‘indicate the name of the carrier’ as being ABC Container Line then -to me- the b/l seems ‘to have been signed … by the carrier’.
Regards, Jeremy
Capacity of signer
Dear Jeremy,
My question was what is the definition of "on behalf of". What I understand is that signed "for" and signed "on be half of" have distinct meanings. "on behalf of" could means "as the agent of" or "as a representative of", in such case, the signer could be a party signed as the agent of or as a representative of the carrier without indicating its name and capacity.
Appreciate your expert guidance.
Best regards,
Albert
My question was what is the definition of "on behalf of". What I understand is that signed "for" and signed "on be half of" have distinct meanings. "on behalf of" could means "as the agent of" or "as a representative of", in such case, the signer could be a party signed as the agent of or as a representative of the carrier without indicating its name and capacity.
Appreciate your expert guidance.
Best regards,
Albert
Capacity of signer
Albert,
Sorry, I did not get where you were coming from, so to speak.
I believe that employees of a company are regarded as its agents, i.e. they are empowered to bind the company. Therefore, for them to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ is not inconsistent with their ‘status’. In the UK it is quite common for employees of a company to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ or ‘per pro’* it; many of the documents we or our customers sign use one or other formulation. Therefore, my opinion is that ‘for’ and ‘(for) and on behalf of’ are not legally distinct concepts.
* or ‘pp’ = Through another A person delegated to act for another.
Regards, Jeremy
Sorry, I did not get where you were coming from, so to speak.
I believe that employees of a company are regarded as its agents, i.e. they are empowered to bind the company. Therefore, for them to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ is not inconsistent with their ‘status’. In the UK it is quite common for employees of a company to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ or ‘per pro’* it; many of the documents we or our customers sign use one or other formulation. Therefore, my opinion is that ‘for’ and ‘(for) and on behalf of’ are not legally distinct concepts.
* or ‘pp’ = Through another A person delegated to act for another.
Regards, Jeremy
Capacity of signer
Dear Albert,
B/l should clearly indicates the capacity of the signer.In your case the capacity cannot be determined.If ABC Container Line is a carrier why the b/l states "for and on behalf of"?
If ABC is an agent b/l should mention "ABC Container Line as agent of carrier XYZ".
Regards,Bogdan
B/l should clearly indicates the capacity of the signer.In your case the capacity cannot be determined.If ABC Container Line is a carrier why the b/l states "for and on behalf of"?
If ABC is an agent b/l should mention "ABC Container Line as agent of carrier XYZ".
Regards,Bogdan
Capacity of signer
Bogdan,
I have already explained that it is perfectly normal for an employee to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ (or ‘per pro’, meaning the same thing) its company.
IF ABC Container Line is indicated as being the carrier on the b/l then there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for saying that the b/l is not ‘signed … by the carrier’ by reason of the fact that the signatory has signed ‘for and on behalf of’. Therefore, if ABC Container Line is indicated as being the carrier on the b/l:
For and on behalf of
ABC Container Line
[Signature]
would be perfectly acceptable.
However, if ABC Container Line is NOT indicated as being the carrier on the b/l -and some other entity is- then of course ABC Container Line need to state they are acting on behalf of that entity. However, they do not have to use the word ‘agent’. For example, say XYZ Carriers Inc is indicated as being the name of the carrier on the b/l, but ABC Container Line is their agent, then:
For and on behalf of XYZ Carriers Inc
[signature]
ABC Container Line
would be perfectly acceptable given this ‘format’ would identify ABC Container Line as being agent in accordance with para 76(a) of ISBP. (In other words, para 76(a) of ISBP does not require the word ‘agent’ to be automatically present when an agent signs.)
It would be a mistake to assume that simply because of the wording of sub-Article 23ai that the words ‘for and on behalf’ can only be used where an ‘agent’ for the purpose of the sub-Article -i.e. a person that is not an employee of the carrier or a party that is a separate body corporate - is signing a b/l.
Jeremy
I have already explained that it is perfectly normal for an employee to sign ‘for and on behalf of’ (or ‘per pro’, meaning the same thing) its company.
IF ABC Container Line is indicated as being the carrier on the b/l then there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for saying that the b/l is not ‘signed … by the carrier’ by reason of the fact that the signatory has signed ‘for and on behalf of’. Therefore, if ABC Container Line is indicated as being the carrier on the b/l:
For and on behalf of
ABC Container Line
[Signature]
would be perfectly acceptable.
However, if ABC Container Line is NOT indicated as being the carrier on the b/l -and some other entity is- then of course ABC Container Line need to state they are acting on behalf of that entity. However, they do not have to use the word ‘agent’. For example, say XYZ Carriers Inc is indicated as being the name of the carrier on the b/l, but ABC Container Line is their agent, then:
For and on behalf of XYZ Carriers Inc
[signature]
ABC Container Line
would be perfectly acceptable given this ‘format’ would identify ABC Container Line as being agent in accordance with para 76(a) of ISBP. (In other words, para 76(a) of ISBP does not require the word ‘agent’ to be automatically present when an agent signs.)
It would be a mistake to assume that simply because of the wording of sub-Article 23ai that the words ‘for and on behalf’ can only be used where an ‘agent’ for the purpose of the sub-Article -i.e. a person that is not an employee of the carrier or a party that is a separate body corporate - is signing a b/l.
Jeremy
Capacity of signer
Jeremy,
First,I suposed carrier isn't identified as carrier on the b/l.
Second,you're right regarding "as agent".I think the clearest explanation it is given by position paper no.4 of ucp500 which correct some misinterpretations.
Wish you the best.
Bogdan.
First,I suposed carrier isn't identified as carrier on the b/l.
Second,you're right regarding "as agent".I think the clearest explanation it is given by position paper no.4 of ucp500 which correct some misinterpretations.
Wish you the best.
Bogdan.
-
KimChristensen
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:21 pm
Capacity of signer
Hi there,
In Denmark we have a saying that goes like ”one more time for Prince Knud Please” …
I thought I understood this but by reading through this topic I am really in doubt. Can anyone clarify please?
1) Who is actually signing this document? Is it ABC Container line, some other legal entity or a person (acting on behalf of ABC)?
2) Assuming that it is ABC Container line that has signed – would you then require them to be indicated as carrier somewhere else on the document?
Further I must say that I understand why Albert is asking this. If the intention is to indicate that ABC has singed and is carrier – I am sure there would be an easier and clearer way to get this result.
Best regards
Kim
In Denmark we have a saying that goes like ”one more time for Prince Knud Please” …
I thought I understood this but by reading through this topic I am really in doubt. Can anyone clarify please?
1) Who is actually signing this document? Is it ABC Container line, some other legal entity or a person (acting on behalf of ABC)?
2) Assuming that it is ABC Container line that has signed – would you then require them to be indicated as carrier somewhere else on the document?
Further I must say that I understand why Albert is asking this. If the intention is to indicate that ABC has singed and is carrier – I am sure there would be an easier and clearer way to get this result.
Best regards
Kim
Capacity of signer
Bogdan,
Fair enough. Based on Albert’s posting I inferred he regarded the b/l as ‘on its face indicat[ing] the name of the carrier’ as ABC Container Line and was simply worried that the words ‘for and on behalf of’ were inconsistent with this.
Kim,
How’s the Lego going?
Jeremy
Fair enough. Based on Albert’s posting I inferred he regarded the b/l as ‘on its face indicat[ing] the name of the carrier’ as ABC Container Line and was simply worried that the words ‘for and on behalf of’ were inconsistent with this.
Kim,
How’s the Lego going?
Jeremy
-
PradeepT_old
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:25 pm
Capacity of signer
Dear Jeremy,
Although I agree to your interpretative argument that para 76 (a) of ISBP does not require the word ‘agent’ to be automatically present when an agent signs. Nor does Article 23 (a) of UCP 500 spells so. However, I could not help but revisit ICC Position paper no 4 item 3 reading as :
“Where the document is signed by an agent for (or 'on behalf of') the carrier, the agent must be named and must indicate the principal for (or 'on behalf of') whom he is signing, in one of the following ways”
All the illustrations thereafter indicate “Agent”, the capacity under which the agent signatory is signing. As such, I do have my doubts on the interpretation and would rather opine that if agent is signing as agent, he must mention the capacity, i.e., agent in which he is signing. What say you, Kim ?
Pradeep
Although I agree to your interpretative argument that para 76 (a) of ISBP does not require the word ‘agent’ to be automatically present when an agent signs. Nor does Article 23 (a) of UCP 500 spells so. However, I could not help but revisit ICC Position paper no 4 item 3 reading as :
“Where the document is signed by an agent for (or 'on behalf of') the carrier, the agent must be named and must indicate the principal for (or 'on behalf of') whom he is signing, in one of the following ways”
All the illustrations thereafter indicate “Agent”, the capacity under which the agent signatory is signing. As such, I do have my doubts on the interpretation and would rather opine that if agent is signing as agent, he must mention the capacity, i.e., agent in which he is signing. What say you, Kim ?
Pradeep