Must ocean B/L indicate the word 'carrier'/'as carrier'?

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:00 am

Refer to the case R222:
The Issue 1 of this case concludes that it is not a specific UCP requirement that the word 'carrier' be used for identification of the carrier. However, the document must appear on its face to indicate somewhere the name of the carrier.
We are now in the question that in case the word 'carrier' or 'as carrier' is not used, how can we realize the name so indicated as the carrier?
We would like to hear your confirmation on this point, whether it is necessary to use the word 'carrier' or 'as carrier' beside the name in order make the matter clear or not.

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:00 am

My impression (which may be incorrect and, if so, my apologies) is that you have misunderstood Opinion R222.

I believe it is not correct to say that ‘Issue 1 of this case concludes that it is not a specific UCP requirement that the word 'carrier' be used for identification of the carrier’.

If I understand it correctly:
1. Issue 1 simply concerned the situation where the name of the bill of lading issuer was in the top right corner of the bill of lading but did NOT use the word ‘carrier’ here to describe the issuer.
2. the so-called ‘ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION’ stated -in summary- that the word ‘carrier’ does not have to appear here BUT if does not it must appear elsewhere in the document in accordance with Position Paper 4.

Point 2 of PP4 says:

‘Where the document is signed by the carrier, it is not necessary for the word 'carrier' to appear again in the signature box WHEN IT HAS ALREADY BEEN USED ON THE FRONT OF THE DOCUMENT TO IDENTIFY THE PARTY ACTING AS CARRIER.’ [my emphasis]

Unfortunately the quality of queries, and more particularly the quality of replies given, is often quite poor and this can lead to confusion.

[edited 10/25/2006 1:28:54 PM]

RolandLeupi · Post by **RolandLeupi** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:00 am

I fully agree with Jeremy.
I have however noticed that this issue, despite position paper in this connection, has not clarify much more since regularily subject to misunderstandings.
Hope that UCP 600,.....if approved today, will definitely avoid them in the future.
Roland

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:00 am

Sorry to disappoint you Roland, but this question has not disappeared in the UCP 600, and in my opinion is even less evident, since it has been clearly stated that position papers issued in relation to UCP 500 are not applicable to UCP600;

However, Gary has promised that in the commentary this would be made clear. I do wonder, tho, how much weight the commentary would bear in a court case.

Judith

KimChristensen · Post by **KimChristensen** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:00 am

Dear Judith,

Yes that is exactly right. I seem however that this will be better defined in the revised ISBP to come with the UCP 600. As far as I understand – even though the wording has been changed in the UCP 600 compared to UCP 500 there are no material change on this issue.

Best regards
Kim

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:00 am

Thank all of you,
However, I still hold the view: B/L that shows the name at the top right corner (not indicate the word 'carrier' here) and is signed as per Art.23 UCP500 is acceptable. The so name is considered as the carrier because UCP does not clearly stipulate this matter.

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:00 am

The only thing I would add is that in the UCP 600, it is clearly stated that whoever signs the B/L must indicate in what capacity he signs, i.e. as carrier, master or agent, and if the agent signs he must indicate for whom he signs, i.e. master or carrier.

Hoping that the carrier signs, his signature would have to be followed with his capacity "carrier" or "as carrier", which would make it comply with the requirement of indicating the carrier.

Otherwise, if an agent signs, hopefully for the carrier, he would also have to indicate the carrier's name, I would think, also fulfilling the requirement of showing the carrier.

However, if the master signs .... here we go again with disputes. We can only hope that the master indicates the carrier's name somewhere.

Unfortunately, it is not because the B/L is written on a letter head that seems to indicate a shipping company, that that means it is a shipping company (as certain banks and importers have learned to their distress when a problem arose)

Hope we get out of these troubled waters with either the comentary or the ISBP

Judith

NigelHolt · Post by **NigelHolt** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:00 am

PhanThanhNhan,

We all agree that if a B/L that shows the name of the issuer at the top right hand corner (without indicating the word 'carrier' here) but IS signed as per Art.23 UCP500 (i.e. the name of the issuer is (1) repeated and (2) -as the word ‘carrier’ is not stated in the top right hand corner- stated to be the ‘carrier’ -i.e. the word ‘carrier’ is literally used- with the signature) it is compliant.

I formed the impression, possibly wrongly, that your query related to a B/L where the name of the issuer is at the top right hand corner but the B/L is not signed per Art. 23, i.e. the name of the issuer is either not repeated or -if it is it- it is not stated to be the ‘carrier’ -i.e. the word ‘carrier’ is not used- with the signature.

Judith,

Sorry, but I am unclear why you have any concerns regarding a master signing, under UCP600. Both under UCP500 23(a)(i) and UCP600 19(a)(i) it seems to me clear that where a master signs the name of the carrier, stated to be the carrier, must be given ‘somewhere. Or am I missing something?

Jeremy

[edited 10/31/2006 11:24:09 AM]

JudithAutié · Post by **JudithAutié** » Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:00 am

Jeremy

My fears arise if the master signs and only signs as "master of MV ...". If the name of the carrier is not indicated as being the carrier somewhere else, the B/L will not be compliant with the stipulations of Art 23 et al. Whereas if the carrier signs, most likely the signature will be identified as "carrier/as carrier" and the agents are used to signing "as agents for the carrier X".

Judith

PhanThanhNhan · Post by **PhanThanhNhan** » Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:00 am

How about the case:
Signed by ABC
On behalf of/As agent for XYZ Co., Ltd.
(XYZ Co., Ltd. is shown at the top right corner of the B/L without the word "carrier" or "as carrier")