insurance document not VALID unless signed

[SvetlanaS]

Dear all

This will seem like a simple query but we have different opinion on this in our office.

An insurance document has a box with pre-printed wording ‘this insurance certificate is NOT VALID unless signed by the assured’

In the box there is a circular ink stamp inserted with the name of the assured going around in the circle but there is no handwritten signature or part of the ink stamp itself does not resemble a signature as we traditionally understand – or at least as I traditionally understand it .i.e resemble handwritten signature.

My opinion is that the documents qualifies as being signed based on the stamp alone.

However, I am out numbered by my colleagues by about 5 to 1.

I look forward to seeing your informed views.

Thanking you

Svetlana

[NigelHolt]

Svetlana,

I agree with you that the stamp would appear to fall within the ‘interpretation’ of a signature contained in Article 3.

Jeremy

[DanielD]

Svetlana,

See maybe Opinions 1998-99 R337 where it is stated that under 500 20b (that is 600 art. 3) a chop constitutes a signature
Regards
Daniel

[SvetlanaS]

Thanks a lot!

That gave me a great confidence boost!

Sveta
PS: the score is now 5:3 so I need three more positve votes to be in the lead

[DanielD]

Svetlana,

It is exactly what is worrisome about doc. credits these days: different opinions. Of course it is interesting but when large amounts are at stake...
Daniel

[SvetlanaS]

Dear Daniel

I agree 100%

It is amazing how a little rubber stamp can cause such stress for individual trade finance officers.

I have decided to accept the stamp as a signature and I have released the funds.

Any other course of action would in my view impede international trade and finance as opposed to facilitate trade which surely is our core objective and responsibility.

Thank you.

Svetlana

[NigelHolt]

A question that I think is linked to the query posed at the beginning of this thread.

A credit stipulates ‘Inspection Certificate signed by ABC Co Ltd’. The Inspection Certificate presented:
1. is on the headed paper of ABC Co Ltd.
2. towards the bottom has a box with ‘signature’ pre-printed against it.
3. in the box mentioned in 2. above is hand written, in ‘joined up’ writing, ABC Co Ltd.

My assumption, which might be wholly wrong, is that:
A. under the vast majority of laws in order for a ‘company’ to be bound by a signature, the signature (however made) itself must be that of an individual.
B. this is understood throughout the world of bank documentary credit operations.
C. therefore it is international standard banking practice to reject any supposed ‘signature’ that clearly appears to be no more than the name of a ‘company’.

I find implied support for this line of reasoning in the last sentence of para 40 of ISBP681, which appears to recognise that it is individuals that sign for ‘companies’. Of course, this could simply be ‘clutching at straws’.

Grateful for anyone’s views on the above.

Thanks, Jeremy

[edited 9/15/2008 4:47:55 PM]
[edited 9/16/2008 1:48:27 PM]

[DanielD]

Jeremy,
It is true in Swiss law but according to opinion 337 a chop with company name constitutes a signature under 500 (and therefore 600, I take it) it is a pity 600 does not define a signature. Somebody ( I think Professor Byrne) wrote that the credit should specify the signatures acceptable. I think now he is right
Regards
Daniel

[NigelHolt]

Thanks Daniel; it’s appreciated. I agree 337 does seem to suggest that the mere application of a company name, at least when in the form of a ‘chop’, to a document constitutes a signature. Incidentally, the documents concerned have been presented from China.

[DanielD]

Jeremy,

Maybe the conclusion of the query would be different these days.
It was then and it is now.
Again, all these opinions should be reviewed and updated.
Daniel